Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Housing) Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

Swinton and Mexborough Gas Board Bill,

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday next.

Greenock Improvement Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Third Reading deferred, till Monday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

Glasgow Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill,

"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation Water," presented by Mr. MUNRO; and ordered (Under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

NEW WRIT

For the Borough of Bromley, in the room of the Right Honourable Henry William Forster (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ALTRINCHAM WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE.

Mr. A. SHORT: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received any complaints regarding delay on the part of the Altrincham War Pensions Committee in dealing with cases, and, if so, whether he is making inquiry into the matter?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): A complaint has been received from the Secretary of the National Union of ex-Service men. He has been asked to furnish particulars of any case of delay, but he has not yet done so. If he does, the case will be investigated.

DISABILITY PENSION.

Mr. GILBERT: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the pension of 3s. 6d. a Week which is granted to holders of the Distinguished Conduct Medal is in addition to the State pension given in respect of disability or whether, in the case of policemen who have been disabled in the War, it is intended that this pension should. be merged in any allowance from police funds authorised by Section 1 (2) of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Any pension payable in respect of disability due to service is in addition to the pension granted to holders of Distinguished Conduct Medal. I have no information which will enable me to answer the last part of the question.

WOMEN'S SERVICE OVERSEAS.

Captain LOSEBY: 39.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of instituting an inquiry into the position of all women who, during the late War, served outside the British Isles on war service and were incapacitated, directly or indirectly, owing to such service, with the ultimate object of placing them upon the same footing in regard to disability pensions as male combatants?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The Government are at present considering this matter, and if my hon. Friend will repeat his question next week I hope to be able to answer it.

ARREARS OF PAYMENT.

Dr. M'DONALD: 72.
asked the Prime Minister whether he would take steps to accelerate the payment of gratuities, arrears of pay, and compassionate allowances in the Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force; and whether he was aware that much irritation and discontent was felt in all these Services through delay of such payments?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed by the Departments concerned that all possible steps are being taken to expedite the payments referred to. I am not prepard to accept the statement in the last part of the question as a fair representation of the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONGO (EXPORT DUTIES).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, upon the Belgian Government assuming responsibility for the administration of the Congo Basin, several leading British merchants and manufacturers commenced, and have continued, to incur very large financial obligations for the development of the palm kernels and the palm oil of the Congo from which the ports of Liverpool, Hull, and Bristol have derived increasing benefit; and whether His Majesty's Government has considered the serious consequences which would now arise if the Belgian Government should decide to impose a differential Export Duty upon all oil products destined for other than Belgian ports?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I understand that the facts are as stated in the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question. With regard to the second part, as I informed the hon. and gallant Member on 1st December, the General Act of Berlin prohibits the imposition of differential Export Duties in the Conventional Basin of the Congo.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As I asked the hon. Gentleman on 1st December, in equity are we, therefore, entitled to put a differential Export Duty on our products sent to our Colonies?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I told the hon. Member that I was not competent to discuss that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SOVIET GOVERNMENT.

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the progress of negotiations for peace between the Russian Soviet Government and the Baltic States?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no further information to add to that which was given on 24th November in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull.

Mr. SWAN: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any restrictions to prevent the resumption of trade with Russian territory under the Soviet Government as soon as freights can be arranged through Baltic ports or by overland railways which enter Russia on the Western Russian frontier?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The restrictions which, in consequence of the decision of the Supreme Council, have been imposed on exports to Soviet Russia, are still in force.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to keep these restrictions in force in view of the statement of the Prime Minister that the blockade by the British Navy is being raised?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No doubt that will be considered at that time.

EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.

Mr. RAFFAN: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the negotiations between the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) and M. Litvinoff with reference to an exchange of prisoners with Soviet Russia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that I cannot make any statement at the moment, but I hope to do so at the first favourable opportunity.

Mr. RAFFAN: How many British subjects are being held as prisoners of war?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think there are about 120 prisoners of war. There are other British civilian subjects who are not exactly prisoners of war.

Mr. MACMASTER (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the prospect of the release of our prisoners of war in Russia?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman sent me no copy of that question.

GENERAL DENIKIN'S ARMY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the activity of the agents of General Denikin's volunteer army in the Batoum district is causing apprehension among the inhabitants of the Georgian republic; and if he can state whether the Peace Conference has as yet come to any decision regarding the future of this district, which forms, historically, a part of Georgia, and is of strategical importance to the British Empire?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are aware that, in the province and town of Batoum, as elsewhere in Trans-Caucasia, there is considerable agitation both for and against maintenance of the Russian connection. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. It is obviously impracticable to decide the future of Batoum apart from that of Trans-Caucasia as a whole.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet make a statement as to whether representatives of the Soviet republic of Russia will be invited to attend, in any capacity, at the forthcoming International Conference which is to settle the future of Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: The forthcoming conference will consist of representatives of the same Allied and Associated Powers which have hitherto constituted the Peace Conference.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many men in this country at present advocating Bolshevism, and is it not necessary, in the interests of the country, that inquiry should be made into the origin of their financial resources?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put his question on the Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 89.
asked the Prime Minister what steps have now been taken to bring about the proposed conference for the settlement of the Russian question; and whether, in addition to the Allied and Associated Powers, such conference will include
representatives from all those states which formerly were part of the Russian Empire but will exclude representatives of the Soviet republic?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing for the present to the very full statement I made on the subject a fortnight ago, except that nothing has yet been settled about the date of the proposed conference.

Mr. BILLING: When the Prime Minister states that they have it under consideration, may I ask is that whether they shall or shall not invite Soviet representatives?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that I said that. I said nothing had been settled about the date of the conference.

Mr. RAPER: Is it definitely decided whether the conference will be held in London?

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY.

Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHER: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he or any other member of the Cabinet has received directly or indirectly any intimation that the Bolshevist Government are prepared to agree to the convocation of a constituent assembly empowered to establish some form of stable government in Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I can ascertain no member of the Cabinet has received any intimation on the lines reported by my hon. Friend.

RAILWAY TRANSPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHER: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance to this country of establishing regular trade with Southern Russia on a basis of bartering our own manufactured goods against Russian raw materials, any, and if so, what measures are being adopted by the Government to assist General Denikin in reorganising railway transport, etc., in those regions liberated by his armies?

The PRIME MINISTER: The British Military Mission in South Russia includes a railway section of forty officers and sixty-five other ranks, who are assisting General Denikin in the reorganisation of the railway system. The British contribution to General Denikin includes a considerable quantity of railway material
mainly for the repair of derelict locomotives and wagons of which there are a large number in the country. A British Economic Mission is being dispatched shortly to South Russia, and I hope that this will materially help the promotion of trade.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this railway material much more needed in this country?

GENERAL GOUCH'S VIEWS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 79.
asked the Prime Minister whether he had seen General Gough or read his views as set forth in the Press as to the Russian position to-day, the need of a settlement with the Soviet Government and the danger of a union between the anti-revolutionaries and their cousins the Junkers of Prussia; and, if not, would he summon the General to a consultation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that General Gough has expressed the views indicated in the question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman not consulted General Gough or seen him since his return, and has he not read the reports in the Press, signed by General Gough, as to his views on this question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen reports from General Gough, but nothing to indicate that he holds these opinions.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it not a fact that General Gough reported on this matter in these terms when he returned in July and was relieved of his command for that cause?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is it intended to take the English chaplain from Odessa into consultation too?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consult General Gough about these matters so as to get up-to-date information?

The PRIME MINISTER: General Gough has returned for some time, and he has sent in reports, but there is nothing in them to bear out the suggestion contained in the question.

DE FACTO GOVERNMENTS.

Mr. INSKIP: 82.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Govern-
ment had made formal recognition of the Government of either Admiral Koltchak or General Denikin; whether such recognition had been intimated to the Governments concerned; and what extent of territory was included?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. We have, as the House knows, assisted Generals koltchak and Denikin in various ways, but nothing has been done in the nature of formal recognition. They are, of course, the only authorities with whom we have any dealings within the area they occupy.

Mr. INSKIP: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the meaning was of the statement made in the Debate on Russia a few days ago, that His Majesty's Government had recognised the de facto Governments of Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer I have given will show what I mean. We treated them as de facto Governments within the areas occupied by them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we not have posted up in the Map Room a map showing the changes from week to week in the territories still occupied by Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it the fact that General Denikin controls the Black Sea coast, and will steps be taken that he releases that coast before recognition is given?

Oral Answers to Questions — PIGEON RACES (ENGLAND AND FRANCE).

Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITE: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the prohibition of long-distance pigeon races to France and from France to England is most prejudicial to the full training of carrier pigeons; and if he will make representations to the French Government to ensure that, at any rate, after the ratification of Peace with Germany, these long-distance races may be resumed?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that the situation is as represented in the first part of the question. If the hon, and gallant Member will give me further par-
ticulars, I will gladly consider whether the subject is one on which representations could properly be made to the French Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. G. THORNE: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations for Peace with Turkey have yet commenced; and, if not, whether he can state when these negotiations will be opened?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The nature of the terms to be imposed on Turkey has been the subject of frequent discussion among the Allied representatives at Paris. For reasons with which the House is familiar, it has not yet been found possible to proceed definitely with the negotiations. His Majesty's Government are anxious, and have, indeed, proposed, that they should be taken up with the least possible delay.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Are these negotiations going to be resumed in Paris?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That point is under discussion.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does the hon. Gentleman think it would be possible to declare the War at an end before this Treaty is made?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of that question.

Lieut. - Colonel W. GUINNESS: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any date and place have yet been fixed for reopening negotiations as to peace with Turkey?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The matter is under discussion between the Allied Powers.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When may we have some statement of policy with regard to Turkey?

Major GLYN: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government can make any statement in regard to the present situation in Afghanistan and Kurdistan; whether there has been any reason to believe that recent unrest has been greatly augmented by the activities
of the agents of the committee of the Union of Progress; whether the present Government at Constantinople are aware of the action of the Young Turk party in organising trouble, especially against the British Empire; and whether, in view of the admitted necessity of concluding an early peace with Turkey, and basing our claim upon the predominant part played by the British Empire in bringing about, the defeat of Turkey, the British Government can at once open negotiations with the Ottoman Government in London, and no longer await the indefinite commencement of peace negotiations in Paris?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot make any statement on this subject at present.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: 55.
asked whether it is intended to make the expenditure of £21,000 per day on the Black Sea Army a charge upon Turkey under the treaty to be negotiated with that country?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible to discuss by question and answer the possible terms of peace with Turkey.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

EDUCATION BILL.

Mr. E. KELLY: 3.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will circulate a White Paper giving financial particulars and estimates regarding future income in detail in connection with the Irish Education Bill; whether he can say when the Second Reading will be taken; and will he make the suggested White Paper available a reasonable time before Second Reading?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is hoped the Second Reading of the Bill will be taken next week; a White Paper will be issued at the usual time.

Mr. MacVEAGH: What is the usual time in the Irish Office?

Mr. HENRY: After the Second Reading.

Major O'NEILL: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the total sum of money provided annually by Parliament for education in Ireland at the present time, and by what amount tins sum will be increased if the Irish Education Bill is passed in its present form?

Mr. HENRY: The total provision voted for the current year for education in Ireland, excluding universities and colleges, is about £3,387,000. If the Bill becomes law in its present form Ireland will secure (in addition to the equivalent of the amount granted for Ireland in the standard year) 9/80ths of the excess amount granted from time to time to England over the amount granted in the standard year as provided in Clause 24 of the Bill.

Major O'NEILL: Could not the right hon. Gentleman say what that nine-eightieths will amount to in this year?

Mr. HENRY: That would be impossible, for this year will not be the governing year. If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to the Estimate, he will see that it is a matter of calculation. I shall be glad to supply him with information.

Major O'NEILL: Will this amount be sufficient to carry out the recommendations of the Vice-regal Committee so far as teachers' salaries are concerned?

Mr. HENRY: I think so.

SALMON FISHERIES.

Mr. ARCHDALE: 4 and 5.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) what steps he proposes to take, financially, to enable the conservators to protect salmon in Ireland in the coming season;
(2) Whether he has received the resolution of the conference of Irish fishery conservators of 14th ultimo; and whether he will introduce legislation this Session to remedy the grievance complained of before next fishing season?

Mr. HENRY: I have received the resolution referred to. Legislation would be necessary to remedy the grievance complained of, but I can hold out no hope of any such legislation this Session.

HORSES (EXPORT TO SWITZERLAND)

Colonel NEWMAN: 6.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware
of the considerable export of horses from Ireland to Switzerland viâBirkenhead; has he been able to ascertain if the Swiss Federal Government is making any large increase in its Cavalry force or are these horses being exported to Switzerland for purposes of sport; and is he able to say that these horses will not be transferred from Switzerland to Germany for the use of the German Army?

Mr. HENRY: The Department of Agriculture are not aware that there has been anything abnormal in the number of horses exported from Ireland to Switzerland (all of which have been for the Swiss Government), considering that the practice of the Swiss authorities before the War was to purchase remounts in Ireland, and that this practice was in abeyance from the outbreak of war until the month of October last.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire how many horses were-shipped from Dundalk in the course of the last few weeks?

Mr. HENRY: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to give me notice.

OUTRAGE, MOUNT CALLAN, COUNTY CLARE.

Colonel NEWMAN: 7.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received information of an outrage committed on the 21st ultimo on Colonel Tottenham, Mount Callan, County Clare, a gentleman advanced in years; whether his house was entered by a party of twenty-two men of the Irish Republican party who knocked him down, tied his hands, and compelled him to give up all he had in his house, and, in an attempt at resistance, Colonel Tottenham was repeatedly struck in the face with bludgeons and severely injured; and if the authorities have been able to ascertain the names of his assailants?

Mr. HENRY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the question asked on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for the Victoria Division of Belfast on Thursday last, and to which I have nothing at present to add.

Mr. DONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the present condition of this gentleman?

Mr. HENRY: I believe that he has improved.

Mr. MacVEAGH: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know the names of the assailants, how is it possible to say to what political party they belong?

Mr. HENRY: I am sure that I have not the slightest idea.

Mr. DEVLIN: Was there not an excursion party from the North of Ireland down there?

EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).

Sir M. DOCKRELL: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if, having regard to the pledges given to men who fought in the Great War and also to the large number of Irish ex-Service men who need employment, he would suggest to the Irish Local Government Board the firmest exercise of its powers on behalf of Irish ex-Service men?

Mr. HENRY: The Local Government Board, like all other Government Departments in Ireland, has been doing its best to give employment to all ex-Service men, but I am bringing my hon. Friend's question again to their notice.

HOUSING PROPOSALS.

Major O'NEILL: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can now say in what way it is intended to apply the principle, of the new housing proposals to Ireland?

Mr. HENRY: The Bill, which was introduced yesterday, will apply to Ireland.

PRISONERS (TREATMENT).

Major HILLS: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the General Prisons Board of Ireland has issued an Order, dated 22nd November, laying down that any prisoner committed in default of finding sureties to keep the peace shall be treated as if he had been convicted of the offence charged against him; whether, seeing that it is a settled constitutional principle that a requirement to find sureties is a precaution but not a punishment, the Cabinet will direct an inquiry into the legality of this proposed innovation and into the general question of the treatment of prisoners convicted merely of political offences?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, Section 16, Sub-section (4), which extends to Ireland, applies, to persons sentenced to
imprisonment in default of finding sureties to keep the peace, and since the date of that Act they have been treated as ordinary third-class prisoners under Section 6 of the Prisons Act, 1898. The notice issued by the Prisons Board is in accordance with the existing law.

MILITARY AND POLICE (RAIDS).

Mr. G. THORNE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that over 10,000 private houses have been raided by military and police in Ireland during the past twelve months; in how many cases have convictions followed; and whether the Government will direct the Irish Executive to discontinue raids unless where informations have been sworn that arms or ammunition are believed to be concealed in the premises proposed to be raided?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to a similar question on 6th November.

Captain W. BENN: Is it the policy of the Government to provoke an outbreak in Ireland?

TRIAL BY JURY.

Captain W. BENN (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether it had been decided to suspend trial by jury in Ireland, and, if so, under what powers and for what areas?

The PRIME MINISTER: I sincerely hope it may not be necessary to take action of this kind.

Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, that is right. May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman?

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Before asking the next question, I wish to raise point of Order. I originally put the question down to the Prime Minister, and he notified me that he had transferred it to the foreign Secretary. I wish to ask whether that is by your order and what are the general principles which govern the transfer of the Prime Minister's questions to the Foreign Office. Another question on very much the same lines stands
in the name of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and remains among the Prime Minister's questions.

Mr. MacVEAGH: On the same point of Order, I wish to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that I handed in notice of a question with regard to Father O'Donnell's case addressed to the Prime Minister. Without consultation with me and without any authority whatever, direct or indirect, that was transferred from the list of the Prime Minister's questions to the list of questions addressed to the Secretary of State for War, with the result that the question, instead of being reached at an early stage, stands No. 177 on the Paper. I suggest that no Minister, whether Prime Minister or otherwise, has a right to give an order to the clerks at the Table to transfer a question from the Minister to whom it is addressed.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: May I also draw attention to the fact that the very same thing has happened to one of my questions?

Sir S. ROBERTS: May I draw attention to the fact that a great many questions are now put clown to the right hon. Gentleman which ought to be put to other Ministers?

Captain W. BENN: May I suggest that the difficulty would be overcome if the Prime Minister resumed the immemorial practice of attending the Debates in this House every day?

Mr. MacVEAGH: With regard to my question, one part of it dealt with representations made to the Prime Minister of this country by the Prime Minister of Australia, and no one but the Prime Minister could answer it.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: I put three questions on the Paper to the Prime Minister, only one of which appears.

Mr. SPEAKER: The questions which have been transferred are properly transferable I understand. Even if they were reached during the time the Prime minister was answering questions all he could do would be to transfer them for reply to the respective Ministers. Therefore the better course would seem to be to transfer them at once.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: May I ask what questions are properly transferable to other Departments, seeing that
the Prime Minister is responsible for all Departments as the head of the Government, and that every single question put down to him might as an alternative have been put to some other Department?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman proves my case. If he and all other Members put all their questions down to the. Prime Minister we should be in an impasse. It is obvious that those questions which are Departmental have to be answered by the heads of Departments. The Prime Minister is- not omniscient and cannot answer all questions.

Mr. G. TERRELL: By whose authority were these questions transferred?

Mr. SPEAKER: They were transferred I understand by the Prime Minister to the particular Departments concerned, which in the ordinary course have to supply the Minister in charge with the reply.

Mr. TERRELL: Has the Prime Minister authority to transfer questions which are addressed to him to other Members of the Government? Is it not contrary to the usages and practice of this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, it is in accordance with the practice of the House. The hon. Member must have heard over and over again questions transferred to the appropriate Department.

Mr. MACVEAGH: Should not Members whose questions are thus transferred receive some notice of the transfer?

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is it competent for the Prime Minister or any other Minister to go to the clerk at the Table, take off the question of an hon. Member put down to a particular Minister and transfer it to the name of another Minister, which is what has happened?

Mr. DOYLE: My complaint is that of three questions which I put down to the Prime Minister only one appears on the Order Paper at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will bring that to my notice or the notice of the clerk at the Table investigation shall be made as to how that occurred. I cannot say without more knowledge.

Major HILLS: 75.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that his questions occupied the early part of the Order Paper on Thursdays, he would
arrange for the questions addressed to the, Minister of Health to be taken early on the Paper on some other day?

The PRIME MINISTER: They were taken early yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PROFITEERING).

Mr. SITCH: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has made any inquiry into the allegations of profiteering in building materials; whether he is aware of the great increase in the price of bricks, cement, ranges, etc.; and whether he will consider the advisability of commandeering all necessary materials at cost price, as the only sure and fair method of securing houses quickly and at a reasonable cost?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Hope): I have been asked to answer this question. I have made inquiry into this matter, and as regards building materials for State housing schemes obtained through the Supply Department of the Ministry of Munitions, I cannot find evidence of profiteering. If, however, my hon. Friend can give me any definite instances I will see that they are inquired into. As regards prices in the open market, the Government have already provided machinery to check profiteering, but any question on this subject should-be addressed to the Board of Trade.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a small Committee to ascertain the cost of building materials in January of this year and to-day and receive evidence as to the reasons why the prices are in some cases treble and in many cases double?

Mr. HOPE: That question must be addressed to the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Health.

WOMEN ARCHITECTS.

Major HILLS: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has appointed any women architects in connection with the Government housing scheme; and, if so, will he give their names, positions, and salaries?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): No women architects have been appointed in connection with the Government housing scheme.

Major HILLS: Is it intended to appoint any women architects?

Dr. ADDISON: The reason why no women architects have been appointed is, because there were no properly qualified women architects available.

SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE BUILDERS.

Dr. MURRAY: 69.
asked the Prime Minister whether the scheme for subsidising private builders, as well as that being carried out under the Housing Acts, would be under the supervision and control of the Minister of Health?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

EAST LONDON.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 101.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the housing conditions in the East End of London; whether he is aware of the difficulty in districts such as Leyton in raising any forms of loan necessary to carry the projected building schemes into operation; what prospect does he hold out to the working classes of these districts of better houses; and how long does he anticipate they will have to wait?

Dr. ADDISON: I hope that the recommendations of the Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which I hope effect will be given in the new Housing Bill, will enable local authorities to obtain the capital they require for their housing schemes.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 20.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Cheltenham Rural Pensions Committee has not met since June last; if he will state how many applicants approaching seventy years of age have put in claims for an old age pension; and of these applicants how many are seventy years of age without having had their claims considered or the decisions made known to them?

Dr. ADDISON: I am informed that the Committee met on the 16th October, when all claims received since the previous meeting were dealt with and the claimants notified the same day. Since that date eight claims (including four in respect of persons who have not yet reached the age of seventy)
have been received, the majority on the 24th November, and a meeting to dispose of these claims will be held in the course of a few days.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 73.
asked the Prime Minister what action the Government propose to take with regard to the Report of the Select Committee on Old Age Pensions; and whether, in view of the need for increased allowance, steps could be taken to ensure immediate action?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will kindly repeat his question on Monday, I hope that it may be possible to give him a definite reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCREASE OF RENT (WAR RESTRICTIONS) ACT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: 24.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to cases of tenants occupying houses of £28 to £30 per annum rent (whose owners are precluded by the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act from advancing the rent), where the tenants by sub-letting are obtaining sums of as much as £65 per annum for two unfurnished rooms and as much as £90 per annum for three unfurnished rooms; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this abuse?

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.


Salaries and grades of women employed in an administrative capacity.


Name.
Grade.
Salary.


Permanent—







£




Miss E. A. Charlesworth
…
Woman intelligence officer
…
…
260,
plus War bonus.


Miss A. K. Leach
…
…
Assistant inspector (attached to head quarters)
150,
"
"


Miss Z. L. Puxley
…
…
Child welfare assistant
…
…
260,
"
"


Temporary—












Miss M. M. Anderson
…
Junior administrative assistant
…
…
200.




Miss V. D. Dumbleton
…
"
"
"
…
…
185.




Miss E, S. Durrad
…
…
Temporary assistant inspector (attached to headquarters)
250.




Miss M. G. Elias
…
…
Junior administrative assistant
…
…
185.




Miss E. A. Ferris
…
…
"
"
"
…
…
200.




*Mrs. D. K. Foster
…
…
"
"
"
…
…
200.




Miss E. M. Knight
…
…
"
"
"
…
…
220.




Mrs. A. M. Macintyre
…
"
"
"
…
…
170.




Miss A. A. Malcolm
…
"
"
"
…
…
215.




Miss I. St. C. Tisdall
…
"
"
"
…
…
205.




Miss C. Rowson
…
…
"
"
"
…
…
175.




Miss M. M. White
…
…
Assistant private secretary to Minister
…
200.




* Mrs. Foster resigned her appointment on the 29th ultimo.

Dr. ADDISON: I am advised that the Increase of Rent, etc., Acts apply to any part of a house which is let as a separate dwelling, and that, therefore, any increase of rent in excess of the standard rent of the part so let would be recoverable by the sub-tenant.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHISKY.

Mr. HOGGE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether the trade asked for the release on whisky to be removed or whether it was removed by the Government to enable American spirits to be sold and so secure a larger revenue for the Exchequer?

The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to the first part of the question, the pressure for release did not emanate from the trade; the reply to the second part is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WOMEN EMPLOYED).

Major HILLS: 22.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the individual salaries and grades of the fifteen women who he has stated are employed on his Ministry in an administrative capacity?

Dr. ADDISON: The information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the information, promised:

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING COMMITTEES (OFFICIAL REPORT).

Major GUEST: 27.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the present Grand Committee system and of the fact that it would appear a complete impossibility for Members to follow the daily proceedings of a number of such Committees besides the debates on the floor of the House, whether he will arrange that a précis of the proceedings of all such Committees be printed and circulated to all Members prior to the Report Stage of any Bill, in order that Members may become acquainted with the amended Bill and familiarise themselves with the main points of alteration and contention?

The PRIME MINISTER: In most cases an OFFICIAL REPORT is published of the proceedings of the Grand Committees, and is available to Members.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Prime Minister to the fact that sometimes the proceedings of very important Standing Committees remain wihout any report owing to the fact that there is no provision made for a report of the proceedings of those Committees? May I suggest to the Prime Minister—I do not know whether it is in your authority or his—that a rule should be passed that the proceedings of all the Standing Committees should be officially reported?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been frequently discussed in this House, and the decision we came to was that it should be left to me to make arrangements for the reporting of the Committees.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUES TO PRIME MINISTERS.

Mr. HOGGE: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the statues to late Prime Ministers voted from public funds were placed in Westminster Abbey and not in the House of Commons; whether the statues to Bright, Northcote, Gladstone, and Granville, and the busts of W. H. Smith and Lord Randolph Churchill in the House of Commons were all provided by private subscription; and whether he will now reconsider the proposal to vote money from public funds for a statue to the late Mr. Chamberlain?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the
affirmative, as regards the last part, I see no reason to modify the opinion which I expressed in answer to a question by the hon. Member on Thursday, 20th November.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Could not we reproduce in stone Prime Ministers during their lifetime?

The PRIME MINISTER: All Prime Ministers, in my experience, get plenty of stones thrown at them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM).

Major STEEL: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation for the reform of the Second Chamber during the year 1920?

Mr. DOYLE: 42.
asked the Prime Minister when the Government intend to introduce legislation for the purpose of dealing with the reform of the House of Lords; and whether it is desirable that this great constitutional issue should continue to remain in exactly the same position as it was many years ago when his predecessor declared it to be a question that brooked no delay?

The PRIME MINISTER: As was stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the 29th of October last in reply to a Supplementary question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich, we are anxious to deal with this question at the earliest possible date.

Mr. E. WOOD: Can the Prime Minister give a pledge that it will be this Session?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Wait and see.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROUMANIA AND BESSARABIA.

Captain MOREING: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will regard with sympathy the desire of the inhabitants of Bessarabia to be reunited to Roumania?

The PRIME MINISTER: It has been the policy of His Majesty's Government, throughout the Peace Conference to endeavour to unite national majorities wherever it is practicable to do so. They will approach the consideration of the Bessarabian problem in that spirit.

Lord R. CECIL: 71.
asked the Prime Minister what provisions had been made for the protection of religious, racial, and linguistic minorities in Roumania?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Roumanian Government have been required by the Supreme Council in Paris to sign a Convention protecting those minorities before 5th December, in order that the terms of Peace with Hungary may be settled.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL EUROPE (ECONOMIC SITUATION).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state whether the United States have consented to share the burden of relief of the economic situation in Central Europe?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are discussing the question with the United States Government, and it is impossible to make any statement for the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

PEACE RATIFICATION.

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement upon the questions which are delaying ratification of Peace with Germany, namely, the administration of the occupied territories, the sinking of the German ships, the repatriation of German prisoners of war, and the extradition of war criminals?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I can make no statement on this question while negotiations are in active progress.

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 63.
asked when the Treaty of Peace with Germany will be ratified?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not possible to give a definite date, but I hope that the Treaty will be ratified before the end of the month.

DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 76.
asked the Prime Minister whether it had been decided to send diplomatic missions to Munich, Darmstadt, Leipsic, and Stutt-
gart; and, if so, what was the justification for the expense in view of the unified government of the German republic?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question of sending diplomatic representatives of His Majesty's Government to Munich and Dresden is under consideration, but cannot be decided until it is known whether, under the new German Constitution, the separate States of the Reich are entitled to separate diplomatic representation, and, if so, whether those States would wish for such separate representation. The question cannot be finally decided until the Peace Treaty with Germany is ratified and His Majesty's representative at Berlin has been, thereafter, duly accredited.

RUHLEBEN PRISONERS (COMPENSATION).

Colonel MORDEN: 78.
asked the Prime Minister whether any arrangements had been made whereby the civilians interned at Ruhleben during the War were to be given compensation for the losses occasioned by their internment; and, if so, what was the basis on which this compensation was to be paid, and what was the Department through which the payments would be made?

The PRIME MINISTER: Compensation for damage sustained by British civilians formerly interned in Germany is governed by the terms of Annex 1 to Section 1, Part VIII., of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. All claims by British civilians against the German Government in respect of internment have been registered during the War by the Foreign Claims Office of the Foreign Office. These claims will in due course be presented to and considered by the Reparation Commission. That authority alone has the power to decide which of them are entitled to rank under the terms of tile Treaty. The procedure of the Commission, the basis upon which its awards will be made, and the mariner in which the amounts awarded will be paid to the claimants are matters which cannot be determined in advance, but must necessarily await the establishment of the tribunal in question.

Colonel MORDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state any approximate date when these claims can be adjusted?

The PRIME MINISTER: Everything awaits the ratification of the Treaty. Until the Treaty is ratified the Reparation
Commission cannot commence its work. The moment it is set up and is in authority I have no doubt all these claims will be considered.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Where are parties to lodge their claims?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think they are registered with the Foreign Claims Office at the Foreign Office.

"GOEBEN" AND OTHER SHIPS.

Viscount CURZON: 32.
asked whether anything has as yet been decided with regard to the disposal of the ex-German ships and the "Goeben"; whether the cost to this country of the manning and maintenance of these ships is recoverable from Germany?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The matter is still under consideration by the Supreme Council in Paris. As regards the second part, a record of the expenses incurred is being kept, but the amount cannot yet be stated. The provision of a skeleton crew for the "Goeben" is a charge upon the Turkish Government. As regards the last part of the question, no financial claims have been made on Germany for expenses arising out of the Scapa incident, but reparation in kind has been demanded.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to take it as a fact that the publication made as to the disposal of these ships is correct?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know to what publication the hon. and gallant Member refers.

Viscount CURZON: Publication in the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — D'ANNUNZIO'S FORCES.

VISCOUNT CURZON: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the extent of the armed forces, naval and military, at the disposal of Gabriel D'Annunzio, and what is their present disposition; and, as to their intended movements, whether the Supreme Council intend to permit any further attacks upon Jugo-Slavia or Montenegro?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government can make no statement as to the extent or disposition or intended movements of the armed forces at the disposal of Gabriel D'Annunzio for they vary from
time to time. As to the last part of the question, the matter is engaging the constant attention of the Supreme Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 34.
asked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state on what date the Government proposals for the better government of Ireland will be introduced?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to make any statement with reference to the proclamation of the Sinn Fein organisation in Ireland and the proclamation of kindred bodies in that country; if so, when; and whether, in view of the feeling in this country and in His Majesty's Dominions beyond the sea aroused by the present state of affairs in Ireland, an early opportunity will be given for a discussion in the House of Commons on the Irish situation?

Mr. G. THORNE: 59.
asked when the Bill dealing with the government of Ireland will be introduced?

Mr. NEWBOULD: 86.
asked whether the Government has decided, in view of the increase of crime in Ireland, to delay the introduction of the proposals dealing with Irish government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I intend to make a statement on this subject after questions, when I propose to announce the Government decision as to business for the remainder of the Session.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I take it that the commission of crime in Ireland will not put off the settlement of the Irish question, as was suggested by the First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech at Bedford? Does the Prime Minister agree with the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the hon. Member heard what I said. I propose to make a statement at the end of questions.

Mr. J. JONES: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: I have called the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) to ask the next question.

Mr. JONES: Is there any truth in the report published to-day that the Cabinet have decided to suspend trial by jury in Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: That question was put to me by my hon. Friend opposite (Captain W. Benn).

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPTIAN CIVIL SERVICE (MILNER COMMISSION).

Earl WINTERTON: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether inquiry into any grievance, individual or collective, of the British members of the Egyptian Civil Service will be included in the reference to the Milner Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference of the Mission are sufficiently wide to cover cases of the nature indicated by the Noble Lord, in so far as general principles may be involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY OF OCCUPATION (TROOPS IN PLEBISCITE AREA).

Major GLYN: 36.
asked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made for the transportation of British troops from the zone of the Army of Occupation to the plebiscite area by the German Government; whether there have been considerable difficulties in carrying out this movement; if there is some reason to doubt whether the terms of the Peace Treaty will be put into effect before the date on which the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Act, 1919, expires; and, in this event, what steps the British and Allied Governments propose to take to enforce the necessary pressure to back up any demands made upon the German Government or the Governments recently associated with Germany?

The PRIME MINISTER: Arrangements for the transportation of British troops to plebiscite areas are being made by Marshal Foch with the delegation of the German Government in Paris, and are not yet sufficiently advanced to permit of judgment as to the probability of difficulties arising in the execution of the movement. The Memorandum embodying the proposals is at present under consideration by the German Government. I do not think that the doubt expressed
in the third part of the question is justified. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — HORSES IN WAR.

Colonel BURN: 38.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider a proposal to erect a national memorial in recognition of the great work done by our horses in the late War?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Colonel BURN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that as a nation of horse lovers the English people would like to have a permanent recognition of the work done by our horses in the War?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIAL OF ENEMY SUBJECTS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 40.
asked the Prime Minister if the Allies have the right under the Peace Treaty to call for the surrender for trial of any enemy subjects accused of military or civil crimes against Allied subjects during the War; if it is intended to enforce the Treaty provisions in this respect whether the list of persons whose surrender will be called for by this country has been completed; what is the number of such persons; and how many of these have been extradited up to the present time?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The final list of such persons is now under consideration. It is not at present desirable to state their number nor how many are already in the hands of the Allies.

Sir F. HALL: When does the Prime Minister anticipate that any of these people who have been guilty of these murders will be brought to trial?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Peace Treaties must be ratified in the first instance, and it is after ratification that the demands will be presented.

Oral Answers to Questions — CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES FUNDS (POLITICAL PROPAGANDA),

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether the opinion of the
Law Officers has yet been sought upon the question of the legality of the industrial co-operative societies applying their funds for propaganda purposes under the designation of political educational propaganda in support of the aims of the Labour-Socialist party and in agreeing to advance co-operative society funds subscribed by members of such societies under their statutory constitution to trade union organisations to support such members of such unions when on strike, as well to their declared intention of applying their stocks of provisions and other goods for the use of members of trade unions (when on strike) and their families to the exclusion of other members of such co-operative societies; and, if so, what is the substance of such opinion, and what action is Proposed to be taken?

Colonel NEWMAN: 74.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the resentment caused to members of industrial and wholesale co-operative societies who are not in sympathy with the policy of the Labour-Socialist party by the declared intention of the societies to give financial and purchasing advantages and preference to those of their members who may be on strike over the bulk of the members of the society; and, in the event of such intention being contrary to the Acts of Parliament on which such societies rest, it is his intention to introduce legislation to enable them to effect their purpose?

The PRIME MINISTER: The opinion of the Law Officers has not been sought upon these matters. It is suggested in the questions that there have been declarations of intention on the part of the co-operative societies to use their funds for purposes other than those for which these societies were founded. It is true that. as was stated by my right hon. Friend on the 5th November, there have been references in the Press to proposed action by the co-operative societies, but I am not aware that any declaration has been made either by the Co-operative Congress or any general body of the societies of a character which suggests that legislative or other action by the Government is necessary.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the cooperative movement was compelled to enter into politics because of the action of vested interests in this House; and, further, is he aware that over two-thirds of the question submitted to him is a complete falsehood, from beginning to end?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not express himself in that way.

HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw, withdraw!"

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that statement.

Mr. WATERSON: If the word is objectionable I withdraw it. Probably it may be a terminological inexactitude.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to put down any further question he desires to ask.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE MONOPOLIES.

Mr. JESSON: 44.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that certain industries in the country have now become monopolies, and that others are steadily moving in the same direction by amalgamations and other forms of absorption now acing on; whether the Government have any considered policy for the protection of the consumers' interests against the controllers of these monopolies; whether he will consider the advisability of the Government acquiring an interest in all these monopolies on the lines of the Government's interests in such commercial undertakings as the Suez Canal Company, Limited, British Dyes Company, Limited, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Limited, and other industrial concerns, with a view to the protection of the consumers' interests without interfering with the-initiative of private enterprise; to assisting in increasing production; to making labour a partner in these industries, as recommended in the report upon Whitley Industrial Councils; and, after allowing a fair return for the use of the capital invested in these undertakings, to advocate the division of the surplus between the Government to assist the nation's finances, labour and management as extra remuneration for increased output, and the owners of the capital to encourage further industrial enterprise?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government is alive to the movement referred to in the first part of the question, and is watching it closely. As the House is aware the Government has taken power to investigate the operations of combinations and monopolies in the Profiteering Act, and the question of the extension of those powers is under consideration. A
number of inquiries are being made, especially in reference to the effect of such combinations on prices, and the future action of the Government will be considered in the light of the reports following upon the inquiries referred to. As regards the third part of the question, I do not think the hon. Member's suggestion is practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (PEACE TREATY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked when a statement will be made on behalf of His Majesty's Government with reference to the Treaty of Peace with Austria; and whether an opportunity will then be given to the House of Commons for a discussion of this Treaty?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I cannot add anything to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave to a question on this subject on 26th November.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a reply to the latter part of the question? Are we at any time to have an opportunity in the Prime Minister's time of discussing the question in this House, and, if not, why are we asked to abrogate our functions as a controlling power?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House is certainly not abrogating any functions. If there was a general demand in the House for a discussion of the Treaty, no doubt the Government would be pleased to make any arrangements necessary, but I hope that hon. Members will wait to hear what I have got to say about the business of the House and then they will find whether the House would like to add to its burdens to the extent of discussing this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRY.

Mr. LAMBERT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that at present the development of the coal industry is arrested; whether an arrested development now will render a famine in coal certain in a few years' time; whether our export trade is dependent on coal production, without which export trade food products from abroad, which are necessary to prevent our people from starva-
tion, cannot and will not be imported; and whether he will announce the permanent policy of the Government so that confidence may return and the development of our coal resources be resumed?

Mr. RAFFAN: 58.
asked the Prime Minister when the Government will introduce the proposals for the future organisation of the coal industry, in addition to the limitation of profits, which he announced on 18th August would be submitted with the least possible delay?

The PRIME MINISTER: The announcement of the Government policy with regard to the coal mining industry will be made at the earliest possible moment. My right hon. Friend may rest assured that in framing the legislative proposals which will be required to carry out the Government policy the greatest care will be taken not to prejudice the development of this vital industry.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time the development of the coal industry is arrested? Will he, therefore, make a statement or cause one to be made at the earliest possible moment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I realise the importance of the consideration which has been urged by my right hon. Friend. It was brought to my notice by a deputation of coal-owners the other day.

COAL INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY) BILL.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: 91.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, before this House is asked to give a Second Reading to the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill, he will cause Members to be presented with a statement revising Cm figures given in Mr Justice Sankey's Report and in his statement of the 20th March last, in the light of the most recent information available in regard to the output and profits of the coal mining industry?

The ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I have been asked to reply. I am sorry that I cannot undertake that such a statement shall be circulated before the Second Reading of the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill. As was stated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in last Friday's Debate, the estimated surplus for the current financial year, on the basis of prices ruling prior to 1st December, was £17,000,000.
The House is aware that the figures are being examined by an independent firm of accountants, Messrs, Alfred Tongue and Company, whose report will be circulated. I do not think it desirable to anticipate that report.

Mr. RAFFAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the report will be circulated before the discussion takes place on the Government proposals?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND (MAIL SERVICE).

Dr. MURRAY: 50 and 51.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that the mail services to the Inverness-shire portion of the Outer Hebrides have been reduced to one-third of their pre-war frequency; that the population of these islands depend almost entirely upon transport by the mail boat for their food supplies and for marketing their produce from land and sea; whether, in order to prevent the economic ruin of these islands, the Government, through the various Departments concerned, will take immediate steps to restore the steamer services to their pre-war state:
(2) whether he has received communications from public bodies in Stornoway and Lewis protesting against the recent reduction of the steamer mail services to one-half what there have been for over thirty years; whether he is aware of the injury which this step is certain to cause to the economic life of the Island of Lewis, with its populaton of 30,000; whether he is aware that the island is dependent for over 75 per cent. of its food supply and for all its passenger traffic upon transport by the mail steamer, and that the food supply of the people is thus seriously imperilled; and whether the Government will take immediate steps, through the various Departments concerned, to restore these services to their pre-war level?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The mail boat services for the winter months have been fixed at three calls a week for Stornaway and two calls a week for the Inverness-shire portion of the Outer Hebrides. These services, though less frequent than those enjoyed before the War, are nevertheless, only being maintained with the aid
of a heavy Exchequer subsidy. It has, however, been represented to me that the great reduction of frequency and the awkwardness of present connections in the case of the service to the Inverness-shire portion of the Outer Hebrides causes considerable hardship, and after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland I am giving directions for the restoration, in the case of these islands, of the service temporarily adopted in September last.

Dr. MURRAY: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his concession, may ask if he is aware that the question of a daily service is a matter practically of life and death to Stornoway and Lewis, that during the War the Transport Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland reported that there was a serious shortage of the necessaries of life, and having in view the fact that there are —

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member would put down some of those questions on the Paper?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIESTE.

Viscount CURZON: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether at the present moment there are large stores of food at Trieste; for whom these foodstuffs are intended; whether these foodstuffs could be used for the relief of starvation in Central Europe; who is responsible for the custody of the stores; whether there is any danger of attack upon Trieste by Gabriel D'Annunzio; and, if so, what action the Supreme Council propose to take to prevent it?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first four parts of the question, the facts are that certain supplies of grain are being made available by the Italian Government for the relief of Austria. A first consignment of 6,000 tons is on its way to Vienna. His Majesty's Government do not anticipate the likelihood of Signor D'Annunzio attacking Trieste, as this town definitely passes to Italy by the Treaty of Peace with Austria. The last part, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRADE.

Mr. HOGGE: 60.
asked when the Bill dealing with the liquor traffic will be introduced?

The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to make a statement on the business of the House later on.

Mr. SITCH: 92 and 93.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what amount of excess profit was paid by various branches of the liquor trade in the last financial year before the reduction of the Excess Profits Tax from 80 per cent, to 40 per cent.; if the figures are not available if he will obtain them;
(2) the approximate profits of the various branches of the liquor trade during the last financial year compared with their profits during the last year before the War; and if the figures are not available if he will obtain them?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 29th October last by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. For the reasons given in that answer, I am unable to undertake to obtain the information which he desires.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also ascertain why it is that the producers of beer and whisky, in spite of the Excess Profits Tax, have all been so enormously enriched, and whether that is due to the Liquor Control Board Regulations; and if he will abolish those Regulations so as to prevent incomes increasing?

Oral Answers to Questions — TERMINATION OF WAR ACT.

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the number of Acts whose duration or operation is affected by the termination of the War; and whether, in view of the fact that the termination of the War will not take place till the last of the treaties with enemy countries is ratified, he will introduce a Bill to amend the Termination of the War Act?

The PRIME MINISTER: I see no reason to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIUME.

Sir F. HALL: 64.
asked the Prime Minister what is the present position of
the question with regard to the allocation of Fiume and adjacent territory; if the Italian Government have proposed that Fiume should be constituted a buffer State; if President Wilson has rejected this proposal; and, if so, whether, as it may become necessary to bring the Peace Treaty into force without American ratification, arrangements can now be made to come to a settlement with regard to Fiume which will be in agreement with the national traditions and desires of its population?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it desirable to make any statement in regard to the present state of the negotiations about Fiume and the adjacent territory between Italy and the United States. The whole question is receiving the earnest and constant attention of His Majesty's Government and of their Allies, who are anxious to bring about a satisfactory and amicable settlement at the earliest possible date.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not necessary, in order that that amicable settlement may be reached, that something should be decided with regard to Fiume on the lines suggested by the Italian Government?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Certainly not!

Sir F. HALL: Is that not so?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether it was the policy of the Government to return the railways to the companies when the Government control ceases?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position now to make any statement on the subject.

RAILWAYMEN'S PAY (NEGOTIATIONS).

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: 83.
asked the Prime Minister whether he could now make a statement as to the position reached in the negotiations between the Government and the National Union of Railwaymen?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Colonel WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement was made on Sunday at a meeting of railwaymen, by a very high official of the railway union, that negotiations were not proceeding satisfactorily, and that that is a very disturbing statement to make to the general public? Cannot he take some steps to give information to the House that will either contradict that or state the Government case?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think negotiations are helped in the least by public statements. It is far better if negotiations are allowed to go on. We shall do our best to come to a satisfactory arrangement, but nothing will be gained by making statements in public.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PALM KERNELS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government would give a day for the discussion of the, restrictions on the export of palm kernels and other vegetable oil products from the British dependencies to territories other than British?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that there would be a general desire for this discussion, and the pressure upon Parliamentary time is very great.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present restrictive policy of the Government is causing great discontent among the native producers, and also dissatisfaction among merchants at home?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure. There are two sides to that question, and I cannot discuss it with my hon. Friend now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we not have an opportunity of discussing this—[HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to restrain himself. I must warn him against constant interruptions, which may lead to reprisals.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

INTERNATIONAL CREDIT.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of granting international credits, in order to prevent a further collapse of economic life in Central Europe, he would use his influence to have either the Council or the Assembly of the League of Nations, or both, summoned, in order that the League might itself initiate measures for international credit, or any other measures of international co-operation necessary to prevent a further international economic breakdown?

The PRIME MINISTER: As my Noble friend will see from my reply last week the economic situation in Central Europe is a matter which is causing anxious concern to His Majesty's Government, and about which they are in communication with the United States Government. As to the suggestion made in the question, it is not possible to summon either the Council or the Assembly of the League of Nations until after the ratification of the Treaty of Peace.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether it would be possible for Austria to get credit in other countries besides the United States, for instance, the Argentine?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid not. There is a good deal of material which will have to be purchased in the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.

Mr. CLYNES: 68.
asked the Prime Minister whether he could state the terms of the assurance given by him during his recent visit to Woolwich on the unemployment question to the effect that the Arsenal would be developed as a railway centre for the construction of locomotives; and whether many other Government properties, established and extended during the War, could also be used in other centres for useful productive work and for reducing greatly the number of the unemployed?

The PRIME MINISTER: During my recent visit to Woolwich I had the oppor-
tunity of discussing the matter with the representatives of what is called the "All Grades Committee,'' with representatives of the Ministry of Munitions, and members of the administrative staff of Woolwich Arsenal. I also made personal investigations on the spot, with a view to seeing in what respects the Arsenal could be utilised for alternative work, and especially for the purpose indicated in my right hon. Friend's question. The question of the transfer of Woolwich and other Government establishments from war work to permanent peace work has been receiving the earnest and careful consideration of the Government.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask for an answer to the remainder of the question? Will the right hon. Gentleman state who the Woolwich representatives were whom he met, and whether also, in the case of similar plant and machinery in other parts of the country, similar action will not be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are attempting to do it, I can assure my right hon. Friend. Even this morning I had to meet a Committee which is attempting to deal with a similar problem in the dockyards. I am very glad to be able to say that they have given a fairly satisfactory Report which, I believe, is satisfactory even to the representatives of these areas. It is a very difficult problem, and we are doing our best to solve it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY.

Lord R. CECIL: 70.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government had any information as to the behaviour of the Roumanians in the occupied districts of Transylvania and Hungary; and whether they would lay any Papers on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: Various reports have been received. If the House desires it, I will consider the possibility of laying any of these on the Table of the House.

Mr. KILEY: 84.
asked the Prime Minister whether a Government has now been set up in Hungary with which it will be possible for the Allied and Associated Governments to negotiate; and, if so, when negotiations will be opened?

The PRIME MINISTER: The reply is in the affirmative. Sir George Clerk's
Report shows that M. Huzzar's Government is satisfactory, and the Supreme Council have asked for delegates to be sent to Paris forthwith.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTS AND EXPORTS REGULATION BILL.

Mr. A. SHAW: 81.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Ways and Means Resolutions necessary for Clauses 3, 4, and 10 of the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill would be put upon the Paper before the Second Reading of the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not usual to put such Resolutions on the Paper till after the Second Reading, but I shall give consideration to the suggestion in the question.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not probable that the action of many Members on Second Reading may depend on the details of these Resolutions? Is it not, therefore, a special case for this concession?

The PRIME MINISTER: I promised to take it into consideration.

Captain W. BENIN: Will the Government move that the Committee stage of the Bill be taken downstairs?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise out of the question asked.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. KILEY: 85.
asked the Prime Minister when the Bill will be introduced to amend the law of insurance under the National Insurance Act?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question is at present under consideration by the Government, and I cannot, therefore, make any statement at present.

Sir A. WARREN: 103.
asked the Minister of Health how many friendly societies' medical institutions approved under Section 15, Sub-section (4), of the National Health Insurance Act are now in existence; how many of such approved medical institutions have ceased to exist since the coining into operation of the National Health Insurance Act and what cause (other than insufficiency of income) has brought about their dissolu-
tion; whether any complaints have been made to the National Health Insurance Commission or the Ministry of Health as to the lack of efficiency of the medical service to insured persons rendered by such approved institutions; if so, whether such complaints have been investigated and established by any impartial or competent authority under the Insurance Act; and if he. will say why the Ministry of Health is not prepared to pay approved medical institutions for services rendered to insured persons such amounts pro rata in fees and additional bonuses granted by the Treasury towards increased expenses upon the same recognised basis as the Ministry have been and are now paying the panel doctors engaged in private practice and rendering similar services under the Insurance Act?

Dr. ADDISON: With regard to the last part of this question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Poplar South on the same subject on Monday last, and to the correspondence which I am sending him showing that every one of the approved medical institutions referred to in his question is being afforded the opportunity of submitting a claim for grants analogous to those which have been made to insurance practitioners. It would take some little time to furnish the whole of the information asked for in the early part of the question as it is not readily available; but I shall be pleased to have particulars sent to my hon. Friend if, after consideration of the correspondence which I am sending him, he considers that any useful purpose would be thereby served.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Sir F. HALL: 90.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if the hesitation of the Senate of the United States of America to ratify the Peace Treaty arises from the fact that, under pressure from President Wilson, the Peace Conference made the ratification of the Treaty dependent upon endorsement of the scheme for a League of Nations; and, if so, whether arrangements can be made for the formation of the League to be left over for fuller consideration and discussion, steps being taken in the meantime to bring the Treaty, as to which there is practical agreement, immediate force?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can give no appreciation of the reasons which are influencing the United States Senate in their attitude towards the Peace Treaty. Opinions differ on the subject. I can make no statement as to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

BUTTER.

Mr. CLYNES: 94.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the offer of 2,000 tons of Dutch butter made to the Ministry of Food last week at 330s. per cwt. c.i.f., is the same price as the Ministry are at present paying for Danish butter; whether he is aware that this 2,000 tons could have been distributed to the public without loss to the Exchequer by averaging the price with cheaper purchases of Colonial and Argentine butter in accordance with the Food Ministry's usual policy; and whether, in considering proposals of expenditure by the Food Ministry, butter is regarded as a luxury or an essential food?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The price asked for the Dutch butter was £330 a ton f.o.b. Sanction has been given for purchases of Danish butter at a price not exceeding 6 kroner per kilogramme c.i.f., but purchases have, in fact, been made at 5.50 kroner per kilogramme. The higher price would represent approximately £304 10s. a ton c.i.f., and the lower £279 2s. 6d. c.i.f. As the right hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Danish exchange is favourable to this country, whereas the Dutch exchange is seriously adverse. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that the butter and cheese operations of the Ministry of Food will result during the current financial year in a loss. As to the last part of the question, I should be sorry to have to decide in the case of any individual exactly what is or is not a necessity. It is, in part, a personal question dependent on the individual, in part a question of alternatives, and, in part, a question of degree.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. WALLACE: 95
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that investors in the last War Loan who borrowed money from the banks
for the purpose have now been advised by the bankers that 6 per cent. will be charged on the money advanced, any allowance will be made when the Government deduct Income Tax from the dividends?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of Section 36 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, which authorises repayment of Income Tax in respect of interest, paid without deduction of tax, on advances from a bank carrying on a bonâ fide banking business in the United Kingdom. The tax on such interest will then be recoverable in the ordinary way.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 97.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what abatement should be made from the Income Tax of a single man who is the sole support of his father and sister, the latter acting as housekeeper for them and the former being totally incapacitated from work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Where the total income does not exceed £800, relief from tax upon £25 may be claimed under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, in respect of any person whom the taxpayer maintains at his own expense, being a relative of his, or of his wife, who is incapacitated by old age or infirmity from maintaining himself and whose income from all sources does not exceed £25 a year. The "housekeeper" allowance in the case of an unmarried person is confined to cases where the "housekeeper" resides with and is maintained by the taxpayer for the purpose of having the charge and care of any brother or sister of his in respect of whom the Income Tax relief for children is given. In this connection, I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of Section 21 (1) of the Finance Act, 1919.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (INCREASED BONUS).

Mr. MARRIOTT: 96.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Conciliation and Arbitration Board have recently awarded an increased bonus to the Civil Service; what the estimated cost of the award will be; and whether any provision was made for such an increase in the revised Estimate for the current year or in the Estimate of Expenditure in
a normal year which was recently submitted to Parliament in Command Papers 377 and 376?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Arbitration hoard has granted an increase of war bonus to permanent Civil servants, dating from the 17th November. The cost of the increase granted by the Board is estimated at £1,250,000 in the current year and at £3,500,000 per annum in a full year. No provision was made for these increases in the White Paper. I, perhaps, ought to add that since the award was given application has been made for a similar increase in the wages of temporary employés.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCHANGE (UNITED STATES).

Colonel MORDEN: 98.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the United States Government have ever been asked to accept an equivalent amount of the securities we hold of our other Allies in settlement of our debt to America; if so, what was the date on which the question was brought forward and the nature of the reply given by the United States Government; and, if not, whether, in the event of the United States Government having agreed to make this settlement, the adverse rate of exchange would have been materially rectified, our credit greatly improved, and the cost of living consequently lowered?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No proposal of this kind has been made by us to the American Government.

Colonel MORDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a leading bank in New York last spring was prepared for such a proposal from the British Government and to support that proposal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I am unable to confirm the hon. Gentleman's statement, but I could not make proposals to the American Government on the initiative of an American bank.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why did you not make it on your own initiative?

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOATING DEBT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 99.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, in view of the rejection of Premium Bonds, how he now intends to get the Floating Debt funded?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. and gallant Member knows, I do not accept the assumption underlying his question that an issue of Premium Bonds would have materially reduced the Floating Debt, nor can the conversion of, say, Treasury Bills into short-dated Bonds be properly described as funding. On the general question of funding, I can at present add nothing to my previous statements.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Mr. ADAMSON: asked the Prime Minister if he can inform the House what business will be taken next week, and if he is in a position to say when the House will adjourn for Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: The business we propose for next week is:

Monday, Housing Bill, Second Reading;
Tuesday, Supplementary Estimates;
Wednesday, Navy Estimates;
Thursday, Coal Bill, Second Reading.

The House would, I have no doubt, desire to have an indication of the views of the Government as to the future course of business and the probable termination of the Session.
The Government recognise that a great and an almost unprecedented strain has been put upon the House. Speaking as a Member of thirty years' standing, I cannot recollect a single Session where so much hard and conscientious work has been put in by hon. Members, both in Committee upstairs and on the floor of the House.
The essential tasks of reconstruction following the dislocation of a great War rendered it necessary that an unusual number of measures of the first importance should be carried through without delay. In normal times, this legislation would have been spread over several Sessions, but the conditions here and everywhere made delay dangerous, and a good deal of the essential work of reconstruction could not be commenced without the statutory authority of Parliament. That accounts for the exceptional pressure upon Parliament in its first Session. I fear also, for the same reason, the pressure must continue through the second Session of this Parliament.
Having regard to the strain of the past few months, and the prospect of an inevitable repetition of it in the coining Session, the Government feel it is due to the House to close this Session as early as possible, in order to give hon. Members an interval of rest before they renew their onerous tasks next year.
We therefore propose, with the assistance of the House, to do our best to avoid an Adjournment and to secure a Prorogation before Christmas. That will necessarily involve postponing till next Session all measures which have not yet made much progress, and which the House has shown a desire to spend a considerable time in examining.
We hope to introduce the Irish Bill early the week after next, but it is obvious if we are to prorogue this year that such a measure could not be carried through this Session. The same thing applies to measures like the Hours of Employment Bill, the Education (Ireland) Bill, and the Imports and Exports Bill I doubt whether there will be time to introduce the Liquor Control Bill and the Agriculture Bill.
In order to save the time which has already been expended, we are contemplating inviting the House to alter the Standing Orders, in order to take particular measures in the next Session at the stage at which they have been carried during the present Session.
As regards the Army and Air Estimates, these are ready and will be laid in a few days. There is nothing new in them which has not already been under discussion, and I hope the House will await further discussion on Army and Air matters till the post-War Estimates are introduced early next year.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: What will be the date of rising?

The PRIME MINISTER: That will depend entirely on the progress we shall make with business. There are certain measures we must get through. For instance, the Housing Bill we must get through all its stages in order to press on, and there are certain other measures which must also be completed. I hope we might be able to rise on the 23rd December. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am certain that hon. Members would prefer going on till then to coming back after the 23rd, and for that reason I suggest
that we should press on before Christmas, so as to be able then to adjourn till early in February.

Mr. ADAMSON: Can the Prime Minister inform us when the copies of the Limitation of Food Prices Bill will be available?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand to-morrow.

Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is now dropping the Irish Education Bill, may I ask what he proposes to do with regard to the teachers' salaries?

The PRIME MINISTER: I never indicated that the Government proposed to drop the Bill.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Can he give any indication as to the date of the commencement of the next Session?

HON. MEMBERS: He said early in February.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give time for the discussion, as has been understood and agreed between both benches here, for the Army and the Air Force before Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: It will be very difficult to find time if the House really desires to prorogue before Christmas. We are entirely in the hands of the House, and if the House insists upon discussions upon that and one or two other topics, it will be quite impossible to prorogue on the date named. However, we are entirely in the hands of hon. Members.

Sir H. NORMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he proposes to give only one day for the Second Reading of the Coal Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: With the time at our disposal, I am sorry to say, there is only one day available.

Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Attorney-General for Ireland stated early in the day that it was intended to take the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill next week? Is that still the intention, and is it the intention of the Government to carry that Bill through this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid it will be quite impossible to carry it through this Session, if the Session terminates before Christmas, but as I pointed out, there we are entirely in the hands of the House. I did not hear what the Attorney-General for Ireland said, but. I do not think we can take the Second Reading next week.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: May we take it that the Irish Bill will not really be formally introduced, but that there will be a day for its discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: In our plans we have allocated a day for the discussion upon introduction, because we feel it is not a Bill one can introduce without explanation.

Oral Answers to Questions — Captain REV. T. J. O'DONNELL:

COURT-MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the Minister for War now make a statement with regard to the case of the Rev. Father O'Donnell?
[The following Questions relating to the court-martial proceedings stood on the Paper]

Mr. MacVEAGH: 177.
To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Father O'Donnell, an Australian Army chaplain, after strenuously supporting the Military Service campaign in Australia and after serving in France during the War, was arrested by the Army authorities in Ireland on a false charge of sedition; whether he is aware that the arrest was made without proper investigation by his commanding officer, although such investigation is made necessary by the Army Regulations, and that, in further breach of the Army Regulations, no particulars of any charge were notified to him until application was made to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus; whether he is aware that when in custody he was prevented from seeing his friends and even from consulting the solicitor and King's Counsel engaged far his defence unless in the presence of an officer; that his military gaolers refused to send any message to his friends; that although he was under the care of a medical specialist they refused to send for his medicine or his dressing-bag; and that when crossing the
barrack yard for necessary purposes he was obliged to pass between soldiers with fixed bayonets; whether such treatment is usually meted out to officers; whether on arrival in London he was confined as a prisoner in the Tower; whether he is aware that he was acquitted by a general court-martial composed of fellow Australian officers; whether any representations with regard to this case have been made by Mr. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia; whether, as sworn by the Dublin Provost Marshal, Father O'Donnell was arrested on his authority and responsibility; if so, whether the provost marshal will be dismissed from the Army; and what steps it is intended to take with regard to Chambers, whose evidence the court-martial refused to believe?

Captain BENN: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the inquiry he promised on Monday into the case of Captain O'Donnell is yet complete?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Rev. T. J. O'Donnell, Australian imperial Forces, was arrested in Dublin on the 14th October, 1919, by order of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Irish Command. The arrest was made on substantial prima facie evidence in accordance with King's Regulations; paragraph 469. This paragraph authorises a competent authority to place an officer under arrest without previous investigation when circumstances require, and lays down that an officer against whom charges are preferred will invariably be placed under arrest.
The Rev. O'Donnell was informed by the officer who placed him under arrest of a preliminary charge—namely, conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.
He was then handed over for safe custody to the Commanding Officer of Ship Street Barracks, as a temporary measure. On arrival at the barracks, the Rev. O'Donnell was placed in a room provided for officers in arrest, and the Commanding Officer personally went to see him and explained that he was making ready the best non-commissioned officers' bunk in the barracks, as all the officers' quarters were then full. The Rev. O'Donnell was treated as any other officer under arrest would have been.
The accommodation consisted of a warrant officer's bunk, which was clean in every respect, having been scrubbed daily. He was provided with four blankets and
three pieces of bedding, all of which were clean. The room in which the Rev. O'Donnell was confined was placed in charge of a guard, in accordance with King's Regulations, paragraph 465, which reads: "An officer, warrant officer or non-commissioned officer may, if circumstances require it, be placed for custody under the charge of a guard, picquet, patrol, sentry, or provost marshal."
The non-commissioned officer in charge of the guard personally provided the Rev. O'Donnell with soap, towel, shaving materials, and a washing bowl, and other necessary articles, also newspapers and candles. Pens, ink, and writing materials were on the table for his use. His meals were provided from the officers' mess. Everything for his comfort was provided as far as possible.
The following morning, the 15th October, he was visited by a medical officer, and the same day was transferred to Richmond Barracks, where he was permitted to see visitors in the presence of an officer on the 16th, 17th and 18th October. From the 19th October onwards he was permitted to see his legal advisers in private.
In accordance with the usual custom his baggage was not given to him until it had been examined by a competent officer.
The Rev. O'Donnell did not ask to see a medical officer until the morning after his arrest, and as already stated, this request was immediately complied with.
He sent messages to his friends and had frequent interviews with medical advisers, both his own and Army doctors.
The arrest of the Rev. O'Donnell was immediately reported by the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Ireland, to the War Office, who informed the Headquarters, Australian Imperial Forces, asking what instructions they desired should be sent to the Irish Command. Headquarters, Australian Imperial Forces, expressed a desire to send an assistant provost marshal to conduct the Rev. O'Donnell under arrest from Dublin to London.
Before, however, they could carry out their intention, application was made in Dublin for leave for an order of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the Rev. O'Donnell on Saturday, 25th October, in the King's Bench Division, and Mr. Justice Dodd directed that in the meantime time Rev. O'Donnell was not to be removed
from the jurisdiction of the King's Bench. This application was heard in Dublin on the 25th October, and the Lord Justice refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus, stating that he was satisfied (inter alia) that the detention of the reverend gentleman was legal.
On the 26th October the Rev. O'Donnell was conducted under arrest by an assistant provost marshal of the Australian Imperial Forces from Dublin to London. On arrival in London, the Headquarters, Australian Imperial Forces, requested the General Officer Commanding London District, to provide accommodation for the night. This he did, and the Rev. O'Donnell was confined in one of the ordinary rooms at the Tower reserved for officers in close arrest. Here he was given dinner sent down from the officers' mess, and was attended by an orderly.
After spending about fourteen hours in this room he was removed by the Headquarters, Australian Imperial Forces, and placed under open arrest.
The Australian Military Authorities, in taking over conduct of the further proceedings in the case of the Rev. O'Donnell, acted in accordance with the practice which has obtained all through the War and since. After considering the evidence the Commandant decided to convene a general court-martial for the trial of the Rev. O'Donnell on a charge of using disloyal words regarding the Sovereign.
I am not in a position to state why the Australian Military Authorities decided to try the Rev. O'Donnell by court-martial. It may be that they considered that, in view of the nature of the charges, there was no alternative but to go to trial, or they may have acted on the instructions contained in the Manual of Military Law, which read as follows: "A case should not, as a rule, be sent for trial unless there is reasonable probability that the accused person will be convicted; at the same time there may be cases where disgraceful charges have been preferred and where a court-martial affords the only method to the accused of decisively clearing his character."
The Court consisted of officers of the Australian Imperial Forces; counsel for the prosecution being provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the request of the Australian Military Authorities, who were advised by the Judge-Advocate General that it was proper for the
prosecution to be represented by counsel. The provision of counsel is governed by paragraphs 574 and 574a of the King's Regulations.
I desire to take this opportunity to observe that, as stated above, the reasons which actuated the Australian Military Authorities in their decision to try the Rev. O'Donnell by court-martial do not come within my province. I can only say, however, that had the decision as to whether or not there should be a trial by court-martial rested with the authorities of the War Office, they would have come to exactly the same decision as that taken by-the Australian Military Authorities, that is to say, there was no alternative but that the case should be brought to trial.
From this statement it is clear that the action of the Military Authorities, whether in Ireland, at the War Office, or at the-Headquarters of the Australian Imperial Forces, has been in strict accordance with the provisions of the Army Act and the King's Regulations throughout.

Mr. DEVLIN: Who supplied the right hon. Gentleman with that tissue of lies which he has just read out? [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that I would wantonly convey such an impression to the House. I have every reason to believe that the statements I have-made to the House are not only furnished in good faith, but are strictly accurate. They are based up-on the statements of the individual officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers who were concerned, every one of Whose statements I have seen, and, in order to make matters perfectly sure, even at the risk of some delay, I telegraphed as soon as my hon. Friend's question was on the Paper to the authorities in Ireland, in order that the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief should go into the matter and make a special report, and it is on the special report of Major-General Shaw, based on a further examination of the original statement of the case of the military officers and subordinate officers concerned, that all the facts I have stated have been laid before the House. In-addition to that, on the question of law and procedure involved, I have taken the advice of competent military authorities at the War Office and of competent legal authorities.

Mr. DEVLIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence, the sworn testimony, of Father O'Donnell after he was arrested and as to his ill-treatment in the cells?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen the statement he has made, and I have also seen the statements of the officers and non-commissioned officers, which controvert that statement.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every one of the statements contained in the document which ho has just read was contravened by Father O'Donnell in the witness-box, and that the prosecutor specially appointed by the military to carry on the prosecution at the court-martial never cross-examined him in regard to these statements. Is that so?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have every reason to believe that this statement is strictly accurate and correct.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the House who was responsible for Father O'Donnell's arrest in Dublin Was he arrested on the responsibility of the War Office or on the responsibility of the Irish Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have stated already to the House that the Rev. O'Donnell was arrested on the 14th October by order of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Irish Command. Of course the acts of all military officers are a matter for which the War Office is responsible, wherever they are situated, and therefore I am perfectly prepared on that ground alone to defend the action taken. At the same time, of course, the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland naturally in many matters—I do not know whether in this matter he so acted—but in many matters he is guided by the Irish Executive, but I do not know that in this case he acted on any other grounds but purely military grounds.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the charge preferred against Father O'Donnell, according to the evidence given by General Ready at the Habeas Corpus motion, was that he used language disloyal to the King and to the Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The court-martial proceedings are available, and my right
bon. Friend is just as capable of looking into them as I am. I should say, however, that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary assured me that the Irish Executive-were not concerned in this case, but it was purely a matter of military discipline for which the General Officer Commanding in Ireland is responsible, and for which I am responsible on behalf of the War Office.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me definitely now was the Irish Executive responsible? I ask him, was the Irish Executive consulted about the arrest of Father O'Donnell?

Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as I am aware, that is not the case, and the answer which I have given to the House makes it clear that it was the General Officer, General Shaw, who issued the order for the arrest.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence given in the application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus differs from the evidence given at the court-martial, and from the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made to-day? May I ask what is the proper opportunity for the House to discuss the statement, which is obviously controversial, and largely controverted by those familiar with the facts?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the rules as well as I do.

Mr. MacVEAGH: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the questions I have put on the Paper, and which were transferred without my authority from the Prime Minister to him. I want to know whether any representations with regard to this case have been made to the Prime Minister of Australia. In the second place, I want to know whether it is true, as sworn by the Dublin Provost-Marshal, that Father O'Donnell was arrested on the authority and the responsibility of the Provost-Marshal, or whether the truth is, as sworn by General Ready on the occasion of the habeas corpus motion, that he was arrested on the authority of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland? Which of these statements is true? One or other is perjured, and, anyway, I want to know how it happened that the message sent by the Tasmanian Government to Father O'Donnell was suppressed, and not delivered to him for three weeks?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not see myself any essential conflict of facts between the two statements the hon. Gentleman has made. I can quite understand the officer executing the order of a superior authority might be represented as the authority on which he was arrested, and then, on more formal inquiry, the actual source from which that authority emanated might come to light. It is quite likely that in the first case the Provost-Marshal was considered to be the authority, and later on that the Provost-Marshal was acting on a higher authority. So far as Mr. Hughes is concerned, I believe some telegram has passed between him and the Colonial Office, but I have not seen it up to the present. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should put a question to the Colonial Office. So far as the Tasmanian message is con-corned, I have no information on the subject.

Mr. DEVLIN (later): I feel obliged to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the intolerable outrage on Captain the Reverend T. J. O'Donnell, a gallant officer of the Australian Imperial Forces, which calls for the immediate reprobation of this House, and for the instant dismissal of all officials who were responsible for this indefensible insult to the brave officer and to the Australian Army and people."
The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,
The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past Eight this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING ORDER SUSPENDED.

Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Government of India (re-committed) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Third Report, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 223.].

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS PRESENTED.

NURSES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL, —"to provide for the registration in Scotland of Nurses for the Sick," presented by Mr. MUNRO: to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 232].

HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL,—"to make further provision for the better housing of the people, to authorise the acquisition of land for the development of garden cities or for the purposes of town-planning schemes, and to make further provision with respect to the borrowing powers of public authorities and bodies, and with respect to the securities issued by them," presented by Dr. ADDISON; supported by Mr. Munro and Mr. Macpherson; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1919–20).

Estimate presented of the further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1920 [by Command], referred to a Standing Committee, and to be printed. [No. 222.]

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Re-committed) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Composition of Governor's Legislative Councils.)

(1) There shall be a legislative council in every governor's province, which shall consist of the members of the executive council and of members nominated or elected as provided by this Act.

The governor shall not be a member of the legislative council, but shall have the right of addressing the council, and may for that purpose require the attendance of its members.

(2) The number of members of the governors' legislative councils shall be in accordance with the table set out in the First Schedule to this Act; and of the members of each council not more than twenty per cent. shall be official members, and at least seventy per cent. shall be elected members:
Provided that—

(a) subject to the maintenance of the above proportions, Rules under the principal Act may provide for increasing the number of members of any council, as specified in that Schedule; and
(b) the governor may, for the purposes of any Bill introduced or proposed to be introduced in his legislative council, nominate, in the case of Assam one person, and in the case of other provinces not more than two persons, having special knowledge or experience of the subject-matter of the Bill, and those persons shall, in relation to the Bill, have for the period for which they are nominated all the rights of members of the council, and shall be in addition to the numbers above referred to; and
(c) members nominated to the legislative council of the Central Provinces by the governor as the result of elections held in the Assigned Districts of Berar shall be deemed to be elected members of the legislative council of the Central Provinces.

(3) The powers of a governor's legislative council may be exercised notwithstanding any vacancy in the council.

(4) Subject as aforesaid, provision may be made by Rules under the principal Act as to—

(a) the term of office of nominated members of governors' legislative councils, and the manner of filling casual vacancies occurring by reason of absence of members from India, inability to attend to duty, death, acceptance of office, resignation duly accepted, or otherwise; and
(b) the conditions under which and manner in which persons may be nominated as members of governors' legislative councils; and
(c) the qualification of electors, the constitution of constituencies, and the method of election for governors' legislative councils, including the number of members to be elected by communal and other electorates, and any matters incidental or ancillary thereto; and
650
(d) the qualifications for being and for being nominated or elected a member of any each council; and
(e) the final decision of doubts or disputes as to the validity of any election; and
(f) the manner in which the Rules are to be carried into effect:

Provided that Rules as to any such matters as aforesaid may provide for delegating to the local government such power as may be specified in the Rules of making subsidiary Regulations affecting the same matters.

(5) Subject to any such Rules any person who is a ruler or subject of any State in India may be nominated as a member of a governor's legislative council.

The CHAIRMAN: I wish to point out one or two matters with regard to the series of Amendments which are on the Order Paper on Clause 7. In the first place, these proposals are not framed to bring a franchise into being, but they are to insert special directions within the limited rules proposed under the Clause. It would not be within ray duty to take a series of interminable propositions of that kind. I propose, therefore, with the assistance of the Committee, to take three leading points from the various Amendments; and perhaps hon. Members of each group will subsequently let me know their views on the matter. Roughly, I suggest that one Amendment should be taken on the question of sex, another on the question of candidates, and a third on the question of the electorate. I think that will give a fair opportunity to hon. Members to put forward their views on the three divisions into which the Amendments may be considered to be divided.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words "provided that in framing such Rules no discrimination of sex shall be made."
In moving this Amendment laying down that there shall be no disqualification in the Bill on the ground of sex, I should like to say one preliminary word on the scheme of the Bill. The Bill itself does not lay down a qualification for electors. This is to be done by Order in Council. I want it to be a necessity that the Order-in-Council which describes the qualification of voters shall include women as well as men. I do not think I need trouble the Committee with any general arguments in favour of giving women the vote. I should say, in passing, that my Amendment is confined to the vote, and does not give them the right to sit on the Legislative Councils. I do not think I need waste the time of the House on this matter, because all those
who can be converted have been converted long ago, and those who are not converted I am afraid no words of mine will ever convert.
I want to deal with the question as it affects India. After all, India is not Great Britain. In the minds of a good many Members, I think, there must be a feeling of surprise that we should ask them to grant Indian women this gift of the vote which European women have won after a very long struggle. In view of the long constitutional history of our country, and our long training in representative government, it seems, perhaps, strange to some Members that Indian women should at the very beginning of this great experiment be given the vote whereas English and Scottish women have had to wait many centuries to get it. I quite feel the force of that argument. I propose to deal with it in a minute. Before I do so I want to clear out of the way one or two misunderstandings. In the first place, it is said there is no demand. All bodies in any way representative of Indian opinion and of the opinion of the public have supported woman suffrage. The Indian National Congress and the Home Rule League have done so, and I think every witness that appeared before the Joint Committee—and there appeared some very distinguished Indian and other witnesses—favoured this view. Also the only Indian member of the Viceroy's Council himself supports it, so it cannot be said that there is no demand for woman suffrage. A demand from the Indian women themselves is hard to ascertain, and cannot be evolved until they have got some constitutional means of expressing it. So far as Indian opinion goes, it is quite unanimously in favour of the grant of the vote to women.
It is said that it is quite impossible because Indian women are quite unfitted for the vote. They are, it is said, illiterate. A very small percentage read and write even their own language. They are not up to the standard which we expect an electorate should reach. I think these views arise from a misunderstanding of what education means. Education is not entirely a matter of reading or writing. You can obtain knowledge in other ways than from print. Anyone who knows anything of the East knows that the very high standard of knowledge,
ability, practical sense, and judgment of affairs does not depend at all upon books. After all, that argument destroys itself, for the basis of the Bill is not an educational qualification. A man can get the vote whether or not he can read and write. If he can get the vote, why not the women? Then as to the fitness of the two sexes to vote. An opinion from any of us here is difficult to express. I do not know; I have never been in India. But I have this advantage: I was brought up in an Oriental country, Egypt, which, when I was young—which is now a good many years ago—was an entirely Oriental country. I think I do know something of the manners and customs of the East. I agree, however, it is very difficult to judge of the comparative fitness of men and women to vote, but I will say this: that a very distinguished Indian Civil servant told me quite a short time ago that women and women's opinion ruled matters in India.
To pass from that, I come to what I believe is the real objection in the minds of most Members to this proposal. That is this: that the franchise is totally foreign and repugnant to the social and religious feelings of the community. On that, again, I cannot speak with great confidence, and I do not want to dogmatise, but I would ask the Committee to observe one or two things. In the first place, we have made very great inroads by this Bill on the social structure of India. We have enfranchised the lower castes. We have given special representation to the non-Brahmins; all along we have gone counter to the traditional customs of India. Surely what we have done in enfranchising the men of the lower castes is a far bigger shock to conservative opinion in India than the enfranchisement of women of their own caste? I am not sure that the House altogether appreciates the position of women in India. We have all assumed, I think, that they are oppressed, occupied entirely with domestic affairs, that they have no outlook at all, and that the man is lord and master. Anyone, who looks upon the picture of Indian history will find that he frequently comes across gallant figures—women leading their armies in battle, ruling their countries wisely, and presiding over their councils in peace. Apart from that, I just want to call attention to two facts existing at the present time. The one is of an aged and revered sovereign, the Begum of Bhopal, who her-
self is the strictest of the strict. The second figure is that of the Aga Khan, himself a Muslim of the Muslims.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: He represents only one small section of the Muslims.

Major HILLS: I could quote many more, but I do not want to quote more than one distinguished man. I do, however, entirely resent any aspersions on the Aga Khan, a most distinguished man.

Sir H. CRAIK: Who is not accepted as a leader by a large number of his co-religionists!

Major HILLS: He told the Joint Committee that the effect of purdah was grossly exaggerated in Europe. He did not, he said, only regard the vote as possible, but he wanted the vote as necessary for women to protect their property. Evidence of that sort, I respectfully put it to the Committee, is to the point, and it is, I think, rather a tall order that we should say that Indian opinion will not sanction the vote. We all have a tendency to exaggerate the restrictions of Indian women's life. These restrictions, I would remind the Committee, are fast passing away. An Indian lady assured me that purdah never had prevented any woman from doing what she wanted, and I am sure that members of this Committee are well enough acquainted with human nature to realise that the influence of women is not merely a matter of convention. It is argued that my proposal is not practical, and that women in India, especially Mahomedan women, cannot go to the poll. They say that you may give her the vote, but the class of women you want to vote will not go to the poll and the less desirable class may go and exercise their rights. In this connection, I wish to point to the experience of Bombay, where women have a municipal vote and they exercise it; in fact, the percentage of women voting in Bombay is higher than is the case with the men and women who voted here at the last election.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: That is the percentage on the register.

Major HILLS: I agree; there is only a small fraction of the women on the register, and the percentage of those voting is more than 40 per cent. The effect of my Amendment would be this: The Bill gives the franchise upon a property or taxpaying qualification to about 5,000,000 men. I ask
for a franchise for women on the same terms, and the effect would be to enfranchise about 1,000,000 women. The franchise would then consist of about 6,000,000, of which 1,000,000 would be women.
I now Corms to another argument which is perhaps one of the strongest in the minds of the Committee. It is said that you ought to leave this question to the decision of the Legislative Councils. I want to meet that argument. In the Report of the Joint Committee, for which we are so deeply indebted, it is laid down that this question goes so deeply into the social life of India that we sitting here ought not to decide it, but should leave it to the councils when they are formed. I want to put to the House that it is for us and not for the Indian Councils to settle this great question. Surely it is for this House to guide them. You cannot leave a great question of this sort to the Governor's Council to settle. Even in England, with our centuries of representative government, we did not leave the question of the women to the county councils. We settled it here. I know there are many disadvantages. It appears that it is a democratic procedure. It looks as though we are referring questions to the decision of Indians themselves, but really we are doing nothing of the sort. The House will realise that the 5,000,000 men in India enfranchised under this Bill are only a very small fraction of the community. Again, you will have a hopeless want of uniformity. One Province may act in one way and one in another way and you do want some body like the House of Commons, well informed, experienced and absolutely impartial, to decide this great question. Do not throw this apple of sex discord into your new Indian Constitution. There is enough trouble there already without that, and we should settle it one way or the other. I would far rather it were settled here than it should be made a weapon in party warfare, because it is a very difficult question. We know how difficult it was here, and how it shook our old and well established polity rather severely. What is it going to do in the untried assemblies in India? Surely you had much better settle it here. In. India you have all sorts of franchises. Each Province has a different franchise, and there are different arrangements for the different classes. I still hope that the Government will give way on this point,
and I am absolutely in earnest in what I say. Until I examined the case for this Amendment I had no idea of its strength, and I had no idea as to the extent of the demand for it. Every organ of opinion and every body which expresses a view on the subject supports it.
I only wish to deal with two more points. In the first place, it is said sometimes that all revolutions are caused by women. I believe women are at the back of every revolution in the world's history. It may be that some of the more advanced spirits in India are women. It is said that if this be so, what risks you run in granting the franchise to women. In any case, surely they are safer inside than outside the Constitution. If there are these wild women thinkers there, they will continue to do their work. Give them an outlet and a chance in the future of voting for somebody who can speak and represent their views. That has always been our plan, and it has always been successful. I do not care how vast the number of the people are it is safer to give them a chance of expressing their views. A great many causes which would have been far more dangerous have been made safe and orderly by giving the speakers it chance of expressing their views.
My second point is that we have, consciously or unconsciously, sapped the old traditional historic system of India. Though we have held the balance fairly between creed and creed, we have allowed Western thought full play, and it has sapped the whole foundation. Therefore, you cannot expect the system to remain as it was before. You are destroying the old system and you must put something in its place. It should be built up on modern lines. The New World you can build up, but I do not believe you can build it up successfully without the help of women. The future of India is hopeful, but there are storm clouds around this enormous enterprise, which is a new experiment, and I want it to be made under the best possible conditions. We do not know what dangers are ahead, but I sincerely believe, and I ask the Committee to say, that by far the safest course, as well as the most just, is to grant women the vote.

The CHAIRMAN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will put his Amendment in a slightly different form as
follows: After the word "thereto," to insert the words "provided that in framing the Rules for this purpose no discrimination of sex shall be made."

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I think my hon. and gallant Friend, who has moved this Amendment, has made out the most powerful case that could be made for it. For myself, I am bound to express the hope that the Committee will adhere to the decision of the Joint Committee. I quite recognise the force of the demand for woman suffrage in India. There is no doubt about it, and it is quite true to say that the overwhelming mass of evidence before the Joint Committee was in favour of it, and, therefore, I think Parliament would be making a mistake in denying the opportunity to women to become enfranchised. My hon. and gallant. Friend may take it from me as a fact that none the less, despite the strong opinion in favour of it in India, in very many parts of India there is a very strong conservative opinion against it in India, more prevalent in some provinces than in others, but based very largely on the belief in old-established customs, sometimes amounting to a religion. That being so, there being on the one hand on a subject of this kind, divergence of opinion going, as the Joint Committee says, deep down into the social life of India, what is the best thing for Parliament to do? I submit it is to maintain the impartiality which has been the characteristic of English government in India ever since it was founded, and leave it to the people of India as represented to decide for themselves. That is what we have done. That is what we are doing in the case of the Brahmin versus non-Brahmin, and that is what is suggested by the Joint Committee's Report in the case of women. Let me remind the Committee that this is not a question of enfranchising the women in our own country, living under our own social conditions, a decision which we took only after years of hesitancy. It is a question of deciding now and at once whether we shall enfranchise the women of India, who live under different conditions, and whose relations to things in India are matters, I would submit, for Indians themselves to decide.

Viscountess ASTOR: But it is to be decided by Indian men.

Mr. MONTAGU: That is quite true, but the hon. Member will remember that the question of the women's franchise here was decided by men.

Viscountess ASTOR: Only after enormous pressure from the ladies.

Mr. MONTAGU: That is also quite true, but the pressure I am quite certain, if it does not already exist, will come into existence, and the matter will be decided in a similar way. I quite agree with everything that my hon. and gallant Friend said about the folly of excluding women from the franchise and about the valuable contribution which they can make to the political questions of the country both as electors and as elected, and, if I were in India and were a member of the Legislative Council, I should agree with my hon. and gallant Friend and vote for the proposition, but I do not think that we are entitled to do it here and now. I think we should leave it to those who are Indians.

Mr. SPOOR: The right hon. Gentleman, on the face of it, has put up what appears to be a very plausible argument why the recommendation of the Committee should be adopted, but I rather imagine that his case will not bear close examination. He asks us to leave this question to be decided by the people of India. I submit that the recommendation of the Committee does not leave it to the people of India at all. We are proposing to give to India a certain measure of self-government, so restricted or limited that 98 per cent. of her people will be excluded from the first electorate. However the Legislative Councils to whom this question has to be left, are composed, it is certain that they will not be representative of the people in India. We are actually advised by the Select Committee, of which I was a member, though I certainly did not agree with this recommendation, to leave to this small body, which I submit is entirely unrepresentative, the settlement of this very important question in this part of the Empire where we want to secure conditions of real equality as between India and Great Britain. When we say to India, "We are going to give you a form of government which in all essentials corresponds with that which we have in our own country," then, if we are to act consistently, we must say, "As we Great Britain have recognised the principle of sex equality so far as political matters are concerned, so at the very
commencement of the period, when you are going to travel, we hope, on the lines that we have travelled, the demand, though it may meet with considerable opposition from conservative quarters, should be met, so far as this Parliament at any rate is concerned. I submit, therefore, that in the interests of consistency alone we should affirm our belief in the principle of the right of women to exercise the vote. Witness after witness, representing not only the feminine interest in India, but other interests, and also British and commercial interests, came before the Select Committee and testified to the reality of the demand on the part of the women of India to take part in the political life of their own country. No more powerful and certainly no more eloquent memorandum was submitted to the Committee than that which was submitted by Mrs. Sarojini Naidu when she came representing the suffrage movement in India, and stated her case before the Committee. I only wish it had been possible for all the members of this Committee, and especially those who are not present to-night, to have heard, or at all events to have read, the very powerful plea that she made. It seemed to me, and I am sure it seemed to other members of the Committee, that she very effectually disposed of some of the reasons that had been advanced as to why this demand should not be granted.
Those of us who perhaps have a very recent and a very casual acquaintance with India have, at any rate, come to realise that in India for a very long period there have existed conditions of sex equality in advance of those which exist in our own land. The position of women in India is different from that of the women in this country. Certainly the reality of the equality of the sexes in India, despite all those intricate difficuties associated with religion that I am afraid many of us do not understand, has been one of the facts brought out again and again in the course of the evidence. I am sure that I speak for every member of the Select Committee when I say that we were profoundly impressed by the reasons which were advanced, by the eloquence with which those reasons were put forward, and by the strength of the case that was made out for the political enfranchisement of the women of India at the very beginning of this reform scheme. Personally, I was
immensely surprised that the Committee did not go further than the recommendation that they have made. I am sure, had they been guided by their first impulse, that a majority of the Committee would have agreed to the affirmation of this principle in the Bill itself. I sincerely hope that the members of this Committee will try to act consistently, and assist those of us who are urging the Secretary of State either to incorporate it in the Bill or make the strongest representations to the authorities in India that it is the desire of this House that a privilege which we enjoy here shall be extended to the people of that country.
One does not need to go over the arguments in favour of the vote for women, but I do want to emphasise the point that in leaving this matter to the Legislative Councils in India we are not leaving it to the people of India, and, as we have been reminded by the Noble Lady on my left (Viscountess Astor), we are certainly not leaving it to the women of India to decide. The women of India who have spoken in this country from hundreds of platforms have demanded this right with an insistence and power which has certainly never been surpassed by their English sisters, and, as a matter of elementary justice, in the interests of the future peace of India, and with the object of securing from the beginning the co-operation in the future government of the country of a large body of Indian women, many of whom may not have had educational opportunities, but some of whom have and have taken the fullest advantages or those opportunities — there are women of extraordinary literary distinction — I urge the Secretary of State to accept this Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills). After all, it is not an Amendment which goes very far. It does not enter into any details of machinery; it is merely an affirmation of a principle which we have already accepted in this House, and have reaffirmed again and again during recent months, a principle which, I believe, if extended to India, will bring about those desirable results to which I have referred.

5.0 P.M.

Earl WINTERTON: I confess that I was very much surprised to hear one argument used by the right hon. Gentleman against the Amendment. We are accustomed in those days to hear some strange arguments
from strange quarters in tins House, but I never thought that I should live to see the day when my right hon. Friend would say an Amendment to any Bill could not be passed because there was a strong conservative opinion against it. It shows the remarkable political times in which we live. In fact, in the very short speech which he made, so far as I could make out, that matter was most prominently in his mind. He came down to the House, after listening to the proceedings of the Joint Committee, imbued with the idea that this proposal could not be accepted because there was a strong conservative opinion in India against it. I never heard my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik), who sits on my left, cheer any statement with more vigour. Honestly, I cannot see that that argument should hold good in considering this proposal. In the first place, what is it that is proposed to be done under the Bill as a whole? I understood that all shades of opinion supported this Bill—after all, different shades of opinion do support it, people who in ordinary politics have entirely different ideas—because it is an attempt to advance along a path by successive and progressive stages towards the ideal of Western democracy. That being so, there is no logical reason why Indian women also should not be permitted to make an advance along that path. Under the Bill as it stands the path is absolutely barred to women. Then I turn to the way in which this question was dealt wit by the Committee, and, with all due deference to the Committee and to the very admirable Report they presented, I must say I think their references to this particular subject are lacking in strength. I should like to read to the House the paragraph dealing with this question:
The question whether women should or should not be admitted to the franchise on the same terms as men should be left to the newly-elected legislative council of each province to settle by resolution… The Committee have not felt able to settle this question themselves, as urged by the majority of witnesses who appeared before them. It seems to them to go deep into the social system and susceptibilities of India, and, therefore, to be a question which can only with any prudence he settled in accordance with the wishes of the Indians themselves as constitutionally expressed.
When we come to examine what appear to be very weighty words one is tempted to ask whether an extension of the franchise in any country does not go deeply into its social system and susceptibilities. Is any-
one going to tell me that when we in this country a few years ago extended the franchise to women, and extended it still further last Session by opening this House to women, that that was not going deeply into the social system and susceptibilities of this country? After all, it has been suggested, and it is indeed always suggested, that there is something inherent in the purdah system which renders women who live under it entirely different to their European sisters. But really the evidence available with regard to the position of women in Eastern countries does not entirely bear out that statement, and I should like, with the permission of the House, to read an extract from a statement issued by Indian ladies who support this movement which expresses the situation in a nutshell. It is as follows:
The very fact that a woman lives under the purdah does not prevent her taking an intelligent interest in the affairs of public life… There are many women who manage their business with great capacity.
I fear that far too many people take their ideas of the conditions in Eastern countries from the scenes portrayed in Algal. But all the evidence that is available is to the effect that women in Eastern countries are taking interest, not merely in politics, but in the affairs of life generally, and this is exemplified by what has recently taken place in Egypt. If one ten years ago, had asked any Anglo-Egyptian who lived in Egypt if he believed it would be possible in the year 1919 that the wives of some of the most prominent officials in that country would agitate in the streets against an act of the Government with which they were not in agreement, he would have replied that it was an absolute impossibility. Yet we have seen that happening in Egypt. [Sir J. D. REES: "Egypt is a long way from India."] No doubt it is, but the question of women under the purdah can only be considered as a whole, and what applies to Egypt applies also largely, if not entirely, to India. I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend suggested as an argument that Egypt is a long way from India. I think he would be the first to admit that all countries in which women are under the purdah bear a close resemblance. But the whole argument is that women under the purdah are not fit to exercise the franchise. That is the argument put for ward by the opponents of this Amendment and by the supporters of the Report of the Joint Committee. But I say there is a great deal of misconception among many
people in this country as to the position of women under the purdah. As a matter of fact, they are stirred by life outside their own homes to an extent which was unknown ten years ago, and the experience of English ladies who have lived in Eastern countries and have come into close contact with women in 3ndia and Egypt—with women who very often live under what would seem to us to be the utmost detachment from the world—is that they take the keenest interest in political and religious questions of all kinds.
I can assure the Committee as a matter of fact, which can be testified to by anyone who has had anything to do with government in Eastern countries, that they exercise a far greater influence through their husbands on the government of that country than is generally supposed. If so—and I appeal to my hon. Friend below me (Sir J. D. Rees), who is an expert in Indian affairs—what is the reason for keeping them out of the franchise system? If it is true they exercise such an influence, for goodness' sake give them the vote. Is it not the whole experience of the British Empire that when you give people a vote, when you give it to people who are agitating, the result of giving them the vote is that their agitation takes place on constitutional lines? I do not want to go into any argument on the question of direct action, but this is the kernel of the question. Are you not, by refusing an extension of the franchise to women, running the risk of creating a state of agitation among the women in that country similar to that which was created in this country I My right hon. Friend above the Gangway quite naturally desires to see agitation put down in India. But you are putting a serious weapon into the hands of the agitators by refusing the vote. No one would suggest that the ladies who have come over here from India to represent the case of the women of India on this particular point belong to the agitating class. Certainly that most distinguished lady who represented the case extremely ably and eloquently—the daughter of one of the greatest financiers and capitalists in India—cannot be accused, either her or her family, of belonging to the agitating class. They are many miles removed from Mrs. Besant and those who act with her. She and many other Indian ladies have come over here and have ably represented the case of the women of India. We
are further told in the Report that it is premature to give the women the vote and that they are not fit to receive it.

Mr. MONTAGU: Not in the Joint Committee's Report.

Earl WINTERTON: No; I think it is in the Southborough Report that the opinion is expressed that the extension of the franchise is premature. Of course, there are cases in every country where women as well as men are unfitted to exercise the vote, and, really, when one reads cases which are reported in the papers, and especially the proceedings of the Divorce Court, one might as well say that some women in this country are unfitted to exercise the vote. In every country there are scores of people of whom that might be said. One need only take for example the case of the major's girl-wife. Is it to be suggested that the major's girl-wife when she reaches the age of thirty would be more fitted to exercise the franchise than a woman graduate of Bombay University? These arguments have a boomerang effect and they are most dangerous to use. May I return for a moment to the Southborough Report, which reads:
We are satisfied the social conditions of India snake it premature to extend the franchise to Indian women at this juncture.
I should like to give one other quotation from the Memorandum these Indian ladies have prepared. It is in reference to public work done by women in India, and I do not think hon. Members are fully aware of the important position occupied by women in India in regard to public work. They say:
Women…take an important part in social and public affairs. There are many women's associations which do a good deal of Educational and social work. The work done in Bombay during the last famine is too well known to need detailed statement, and during the War the women did much in contributing to the comfort of the troops, raising thousands of rupees. They also took a conspicuous part in the influenza epidemic.
All this is an argument against the ridiculous assumption made in this country that women take no part in public life in India. I have only one further argument which I wish to put forward. It is admitted by everyone, opponents and supporters alike, that, above all else, what is needed and what will be needed in the future when this new system of government is brought into operation in India is to bring formed public opinion to bear on such questions
as sanitation, hygiene, and social reform. Can it be contended that this House is justified in refusing to extend the franchise to women in a country where, above all, woman's influence is needed? Having extended it in this country, I cannot see how this Committee can refuse the same extension to India. There are fears which are always expressed whenever any extension of the franchise is proposed that something dangerous is going to be done by the people to whom you give the vote. That argument has been used in regard to every Reform Bill, and the result has always been very different to the expectations of the opponents of the Bill, and also to what may have been hoped for by some of the supporters of the measure. Let me take the Reform Bill of 1867 as an example. The Liberals believed that measure would keep the Liberal party in power for many years; whereas, as a matter of fact, they were very quickly turned out and for a very long period remained out of office. I do not fear any danger from the extension of the franchise. There are, of course, always people who fear such extensions, but when they have once been granted there are very few who will come forward and say that they would like to revert to the old conditions. I do remember one Noble Duke who, in private conversation, once said that, so far as he was personally concerned, he would like to see the Reform Bill of 1832 upset. But I have never heard that remark made in public by anyone in regard to any such Bill. I hope the Committee, therefore, will not allow their minds to be affected on this question by any such considerations. You are carrying out a great experiment in India and on ground of logic and of justice, and, indeed, if I may put it lower, on the ground of political expediency, I submit the franchise should be extended to women in India. I very much hope, therefore, that the Committee will support the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Hills), and, as we intend to go to a Division on this matter, we shall see what is the attitude of the Committee towards the women's movement generally, and what they are prepared to do to hold out a helping hand to the women of India.

Mr. BENNETT: While I am in full accord with the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) in his deep convictions and enthusiasms on behalf of women's suffrage, I am not able to support
his Amendment. I should first like to address myself to a few remarks made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor), who told us that the question to be left to the Provincial Councils in India, whether women should or should not receive the vote was a question that would not be settled by the Indian people. I have noted with some regret the tendency on the part of my hon. Friend—I hope he will not mind my mentioning it—to undervalue the character of the representative institutions it is proposed to set up in India. He says that something like 98 per cent, of the people of India will have no voice in determining whether or not the vote shall be extended to women. Let me assure him that anyone who has any knowledge of the people of India would say that not from the 98 per cent. of the population will the demand for the vote for women proceed. The demand will come from within that 5,000,000 upon whom the franchise is to be bestowed and not from the 98 per cent. who are left outside it. The hon. Member's anxiety on that point is a little bit premature. The Noble Lord behind me (Earl Winterton) somewhat wasted his time, if he will permit me to say so, in condemning the Southborough Report. The Southborough Report has not been adopted by the Joint Committee so far as his question is concerned. The Joint Committee did not say that the giving of vote to women would be premature. As a matter of fact the Southborough Report in regard to this matter has been thrown over by the Joint Committee. Lord Southborough's Committee proposed to enact a positive disqualification for women, coupling them with minors and lunatics as among the people not fit to be trusted with the vote. In that regard Lord Southborough's Report has been thrown over entirely and the Joint Committee have given no heed whatever to it.
If I felt that in voting against the Amendment I should be acting in hostility to the women's vote in India or anywhere else I should certainly refrain from voting against it. I have been for years a convinced upholder of women's suffrage. I have not waited, as Mr. Asquith did, for women to show in the War what good work they could do for their country. I dealt with the question on its merits, and I may claim to be as enthusiastic an upholder of the right of women to vote as the hon. Member for Durham himself, and that is saying a great deal. But we have to consider the conditions under which we
are asked to extend women's franchise to India. Parliamentary draftsmanship is a cold thing; it appeals neither to the imagination nor to the feelings. As a matter of fact, there are drafting difficulties in the way. My hon. Friend will see, if he studies the Bill, which I know he has done, that the Bill itself does not propose to enact qualifications in the case of men. In its original form the Bill said not a word about qualifications. It did not empower the Indian Government to pass Rules defining the qualifications of men. That was put in in Committee. If we were to enact in the Bill the right of the women of India to vote, we should be acting quite inconsistently with the line on which the Bill has been laid clown. However, I do not put that forward as other than a technical objection. My objection is of a different nature. We have had from my hon. Friend a statement as to the hopeless want of uniformity throughout India. Is that not one of the reasons why we should refrain from uniformity of legislation on this particular point? Lord Southborough's evidence on this subject is worth reading. I think more of his evidence than I do of some of his proposals. He gave the circumstances of the tour of his Committee to India and, in speaking on the question of the women's vote, he said that in Orissa and Bihar he found great coldness in regard to it, and there was no desire shown to have the women's vote. Coming a little westward, he found a certain interest was being shown in it, but in the Punjab I believe no interest whatever was shown in it.

Earl WINTERTON: May I point out to my hon. Friend that the memorandum prepared by the women's associations came after the issue of the Southborough Report?

Mr. BENNETT: I quite recognise that. I am merely stating what the Committee found. They found in the Central Provinces a little more interest was being shown, but it was not until they got into the Bombay Presidency that they found any real interest being taken in it. That statement, no doubt, impressed the Committee, and the Committee, recognising the variety of conditions in regard to women's suffrage, thought it better not to suggest to Parliament the enactment of the women's vote. It has been said, but it should not have been said, that we are refusing the women's vote to India. We
are not refusing it in the least degree. We are helping India to an effective exercise of the women's vote more than we should be doing by enacting it in the Bill as it is proposed to-day. It is a. commonplace of legislation that Parliament should not go in advance of public opinion. I feel sure that if we resort to a universal enactment of women's suffrage in India the result would be that in parts of India the people would be absolutely indifferent, and no advantage to the cause of women's suffrage would result, because a function which is not exercised does no good and may do harm. I believe we may confidently leave it to the Presidencies and the various Provinces themselves to decide whether or not they shall have women's suffrage. We have heard a great deal about self-determination. What self-determination would there be in Parliament saying that, whether she liked it or not, India should have women's suffrage? I do not call that self-determination; it is rather the contrary process. Further, we want to have some assurance that women's suffrage is demanded in India. I know very well what will happen. I feel sure that in Bombay the Provincial Council, very soon after it assembles, will enact women's suffrage. One has only to know the Bombay delegates, the ladies who came from Bombay representing the cause of their sisters in this country, to feel sure that they will not allow much time to pass before they have converted their aspirations into legislative facts. Although I lived in Bombay during all the time of my life in India, I try to avoid as far as I can looking at all India from the Bombay point of view. I recognise that there are Presidencies other than that advanced Presidency in which I had the happiness to live for many years. For instance, there is the Punjab. Although the hon. Member for Durham said that all the witnesses from the Punjab were in favour of women's suffrage, one rather important witness, a Sikh gentleman from the Punjab, gave hostile evidence on this question. He said:
Plainly speaking, the prejudice appertaining to questions like this so strong that I know of examples in which highly-placed and educated gentlemen would prefer to forego the benefits of this scheme rather than give out the names of their wives. We therefore think that this question should at present be left alone.
That is not a theoretical argument; it is a concrete fact. It is one of the class of
facts which must have been in the mind of the Government of India when on this subject it advised that we should go carefully and warily. I recognise the strength of the case that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Durham and those who have supported him, but I hope that those who feel inclined to give their votes on his side will not think that in supporting the Government we are preventing, or even seriously delaying, the extension of the franchise to women. The course which the Select Committee proposed should be taken in this matter is, on the whole, quite as helpful to the cause of women's suffrage in India as the course which is recommended by the hon. Member for Durham and his Friends. Therefore I cannot vote for the Amendment.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I rise to make an appeal to the Committee. We have now heard four speeches upon this important topic, two on one side and two on the other side, and the case for the Amendment has never been more persuasively, more powerfully, or more thoroughly put than in the speech of the hon. Member for Durham. I feel that all the circumstances of this issue have now been placed before the Committee, and I appeal to the Committee to take a decision now. After all, it is important that we should press on with the Bill. We have a great deal of work before us and, for reasons which have been very powerfully stated at an earlier point in our procedure, it is necessary that the Bill should be passed with as little delay as possible. Consequently I appeal to the Committee that we should take a decision upon this. The hon. Member (Mr. Bennett) has put the case for the Government clearly before the Committee. We feel that if the text of the Bill is preserved in the form in which it is before the Committee now women suffrage will be introduced in many Provinces of India, but from all the evidence at our disposal we are convinced that to introduce this question at this moment in the Punjab would create very serious difficulty. For that reason we have come to the conclusion that it would be far better to leave the decision of the question to the opinion of the Provinces of India, and not to decide it on the floor of this House.

Mr. ACLAND: I am more puzzled by this question than by any other which has arisen, or is likely to arise, in the course-
of the Bill. I should like to ask the Government some further questions about what might happen in India if the Amendment were passed and to put other considerations before them, but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's appeal, I refrain from that because I think he has good ground.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to answer one observation of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Punjab. I would call attention to the letter of the Aga Khan, the spiritual head of the Moslems in India, in the "Times"

three or four days' ago, strongly recommending the grant of the vote to women, and further to the fact that the three great native political organisations, the Indian National Congress, the All India Moslem League, and the Home Rule League of India, have passed resolutions by enormous majorities demanding—not asking—that the limited number of women who would be included should be granted the franchise.

Question put, "That those words be, there inserted."

Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 202.

Division No. 145.]
AYES.
[5.34 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Astor, Viscountess
Hallas, E.
Rose, Frank H.


Benn, Captain W. (Leith)
Hartshorn, V.
Rowlands, James


Bentinck, Lt. Col. Lord H. Cavendish
Hayday, A.
Royce, William Stapleton


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Widnes)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Briant, F.
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, C. H.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hoare, Lt.-Colonel Sir Samuel J. G.
Stanton, Cherries Butt


Bromfield, W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Swan, J. E. C.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Inskip, T. W. H.
Thorne, W. (Plaistow)


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Clyaes, Rt. Hon, John R.
Johnstone, J.
Wallace, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Lawson. John
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Malone, Major
Wignall, James


Finney, Samuel
Mosley, Oswald
Wilkie, Alexander


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Glanville, Harold James
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Winterton, Major Earl


Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Remnant, Colonel Sir James



Griffiths. T. (Pontypool)
Rendall, Athelstan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Hills and Mr. Spoor,


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Churchill, Rt. Hen. Winston S.
Gange, E. S.


Allen, Colonel William James
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.


Atkey, A. R.
Coats, Sir Stuart
Gardiner, J. (Perth)


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gibbs, Colonel John Abraham


Baird, John Lawrence
Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Gilbert, James Daniel


Baldwin, Stanley
Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Glyn, Major R.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick
Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Goff, Sir Park


Barnett, Major Richard
Courthope, Major George Loyd
Grant, James Augustus


Barric, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)
Green, J. F. (Leicester)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Greene, Lt.-Col, W. (Hackney, N.)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar


Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Greig, Colonel James William


Benn, Corn. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Gretton, Colonel John


Bennett, T. J.
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Griggs, Sir Peter


Betierton, H. B.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Hacking, Captain D. H.


Bigland, Alfred
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Hailwood, A.


Blair, Major Reginald
Davison, Sir W H. (Kensington)
Hambro, Angus Valdemar


Berwick, Major G. O.
Dennis, J. W.
Hancock, John George


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)
Hanna, G. B.


Breese, Major C. E.
Dockrell, Sir M.
Henderson, Maj. V. L. (Tradeston, Glas)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Bruton. Sir J.
Duncannon, Viscount
Hood, Joseph


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)


Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.
Edge, Captain William
Howard, Major S. G.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Hughes, Spencer Leigh


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Planter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hurd, P. A.


Carew, Cherles R. S. (Tiverton)
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (Yark)


Carr, W. T.
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Jesson, C.


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Ferestier-Walker, L.
Jodrell, N. P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm, W.)
Forrast, W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm, Ladywood.)
Foxeroft. Captain C
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Fraser. Major Sir Keith
Kellaway, Frederick George


Kidd, James
Nield, Sir Herbert
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Oman, C. W. C.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.
Stephenson, Colonel H, K.


Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)
Stewart, Gersharn


Lindsay, William Arthur
Parker, James
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Lloyd, George Butler
Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Sturrock, J. Leny-


Locker, Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pease, Rt. Hon, Herbert Pike
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Pennefather, De Fonblangue
Sutherland, Sir William


Lorden, John William
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)


Lyon, L.
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton
Tickler, Thomas George


M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Walton, J, (York, Don Valley)


M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Purchase, H. G.
Wardle, George J.


M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W, (Brigg)
Rae, H. Norman
Waring, Major Walter


Macmaster, Donald
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rees, Sir J. D.
Weigall Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.


Macquisten, F. A.
[...]d, D. D.
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Maddocks, Henry
Renwick, G.
White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)


Manville, Edward
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Whitla. Sir William


Marriott, John Arthur R.
Rugers, Sir Hallewell
Wigan, Brig.-General Sir Tyson


Martin, A. E.
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.
Willey, Lt.-Col. F. V.


Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.
Rayds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Willoughby, Lt.-Cot. Hon. Claud


Moles, Thomas
Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Wilson, Lt.-Col, Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Mount, William Arthur
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Murchison, C. K.
Shortt, Rt. hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Simm. M. T.



Murray, William (Dumfries)
Smith, Sir Allan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.


Nall, Major Joseph
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Talbot and Captain F. Guest.


Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), after the word "Council" ["member of any such council"], to insert the words "provided that; non-residence in any constituency shall not disqualify for election."
My three Amendments all deal with the qualifications of prospective members of the Provincial Legislative Assemblies. Under the Bill, and under the Committee's Report, there are three points which ought to be quite clear. The first is that it should not be necessary that a candidate for these Provincial Assemblies should be resident in his constituency. In this country a Member can sit for any constituency wherever he lives. In America they have the other plan, and a man may only stand for a constituency in which he is resident. The difference between these two systems is profound. In England anyone who is a keen Conservative, Liberal, or Labour man, who loses his seat can find a seat elsewhere. In America that is impossible, and if you lose your seat you have no chance of re-election till another general election comes along. Furthermore, if you happen to live in a constituency which is naturally Conservative, and you are naturally Liberal or Labour you may never have a chance of getting into Parliament at all. The residency qualification is a curse in America. It prevents a man taking a real live interest in a political career. It makes a man much
more the delegate of the vested interests in his constituency than a representative of the whole community. In fact, I do not believe there would be one Member of this House who would consent to the introduction into this country of the regulation that no man might represent any constituency in Parliament except the one in which he resided. That being so we ought to be very careful not to introduce into India a system which we would toot tolerate here. In this Bill they have arranged for India that in the three Provinces of Bombay, Punjab, and the Central Provinces for some unknown reason a member who is elected to the Legislature must reside in the constituency which he represents. In the other three Provinces it is not necessary. In these Provinces the stipulation has been made—I think I am right in saying at the instance of the local Government—that there should be a residency qualification. All the arguments against residency which apply in England apply with even greater force in India, because there they are beginning political life, and there is not a very large selection of candidates available. Leaders are few in number at the present time, and to intensify the difficulty of getting these leaders elected by prohibiting them from standing in any constituency save that in which they live would make far more difficult than it would otherwise be the
selection of leaders to lead the new democracy in India. I protest against this system. Obviously, what is good for England should primâ facie be good for India, and when we see that it is considered right in five Provinces we have a right to some explanation as to why a system which has proved satisfactory here and is expected to prove satisfactory in the other five Provinces should not be satisfactory in Bombay, the Punjab, and the Central Provinces. I cannot help feeling that at the back of this desire to limit the choice of candidates for any constituency there is a desire to have representatives in these legislative assemblies who will be less educated, less experienced, and more amenable to political pressure. Against that we most emphatically protest. That is one of the Amendments I have on the Paper; the demand that, as in England, there should be no residency test for any candidate for the Indian Parliament.
The next Amendment dealing with the qualifications of those who are to stand for the Provincial Assemblies is that a man should not be disqualified by reason of the fact that he has been dismissed from the Government service, or that he has been in prison for any offence not involving moral turpitude. In that question we should follow our own precedents in England. A man who has been dismissed from the Government service may have been dismissed for all manner of reasons.
Generally speaking, when you are dealing with places like India, the man who has been dismissed from the Government service is a man who found that he could not work in the Government service by reason of his Nationalist aspirations. I do not say that that man makes an ideal candidate, but I do say that to start this reform in India by intentionally preventing any man of that type from getting into a local Legislature is bad, not only for India, but for this country. It is a well-known principle of all government that the best way to cure a poacher is to make him into a gamekeeper. In the same way the best way to get into the agitator a sense of serious responsibility to the community is to put him into Parliament, whether in this country or in ally part of India. Why should these people be ruled out and be driven into non-constitutional methods of agitation? As to the question whether a man who has been to prison should be a Member of this or any other Parliament
it ought to be the decision of the electorate and not the decision of the administration, that he should be ruled out. In this country it would be very difficult to secure election for any man who had been in prison for any serious offence. The same might or might not be true for India, but the principle should be laid down that the electors are responsible for a man's character and not the Government, by saying a man who has been in prison should not be allowed to stand for election.
There are many cases of Indians whom we hope to see in responsible positions in the new Parliament. Take the case a Banerjea, who is one of the moderate leaders, and who will be one of the people to lead India in the next ten years. His connection with the Indian Civil Service was cut short, and unless we stipulate that dismissal from the public service shall not disqualify a man from the Legislative Assemblies, Banerjea, upon whom the right hon. Gentleman counts in order to get this Act to work in India, may be prevented from standing for any of these legislatures. Take the case of Mr. Tilak, who has spent years in prison. He has been twice convicted. He is one of those Indians whom the right hon. Gentleman would like to see on a Provincial Assembly or in the Indian National Assembly. Such a man ought to be in a position of responsibility instead of in a position of complete irresponsibility. Take the case of Lajpat Rai, my friend in America. He has been deported, but he is a patriotic Indian, and wishes to work this Act to a successful issue, to make the best of it, in order to do the best for India. Is he to be barred out by reason of his deportation and imprisonment? Everybody, bad as well as good in India—I mean from the point of view of the present administration—have to be invited to co-operate in working this Act if it is to be a success, and any other policy would be fatal to the prosperous outcome of this great piece of experimental legislation.
The third Amendment dealing with the qualifications of Members to sit in the Indian Legislatures says- that a man representing a constituency in the Indian Legislative Assembly at Delhi should not be debarred from being a member of, say, the Bombay or the Bengal Legislative Assembly. I want to see it possible that a man may sit in his local legislature and in the Imperial Legislature at Delhi. I do not want to have a hard and fast rule that if you are a member of the one
you cannot be a member of the other. In this House there must be nearly one-fourth of the members who are also members of town councils or county councils. We combine the duties of local legislation and Imperial legislation, and we do not find that it hampers our position here or our position on the county councils that we are also Members of the House of Commons or of the county councils. On the contrary, we find that it strengthens our position here that we are able to bring the experience from the local body to the assistance of Parliament, and take the assistance of Parliament to the local body. It is eminently desirable that the Indians, just as we in this country, should be able to sit on both the Imperial and the local Legislature. The stipulation that a man shall not be eligible far the local Legislature and the Imperial Legislature is most unfortunate. It has come about, as I understand it, through the determination of one of the Governors in the past, I think Lord Sydenham, that a man could not sit on the Imperial Legislative Assembly if he was already on a local Legislative Assembly. That may have done in the past, but now that we are starting a genuine responsible Government in the Provinces and a Representative Assembly at Delhi, we ought to make a fresh start and arrange that the practice which has proved successful in this country should be given an opportunity of working in India as Well.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The Question is after the word "council." to insert the words "provided that non-residence in any constituency shall not disqualify for election."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should like to have my Amendments put consecutively and together. I have moved them together by arrangement, and at your request, and I want them on record as having been moved.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That was not the understanding.

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope the hon. Member will not press this point.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I shall move the others later on.

Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. and gallant Member would gain nothing by that. He has made a speech on all the Amendments.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want to get it on record that I have moved the Amendments.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was decided that we could not allow all these Amendments to be moved, but to assist the Committee in considering the various questions raised by the Amendments it was arranged that latitude should be allowed in the moving of the first Amendment, so that the hon. Member might deal with the issues raised by the subsequent Amendments. It was only on that understanding that the matters could be discussed generally. There is no question of the rights or wrongs of Members.

Mr. MONTAGU: I have tried several times, and I regret without effect, to persuade my hon Friends opposite that they are doing no good to the cause they have at heart by these Amendments. I will tell them why. The scheme is that the franchise should be included in Rules. The hon. Member takes up certain points and says, "To these things I attach great importance and they must be in the Bill. The rest must be done by rule." Consequently you get an unintelligible scheme. People will wonder why some points are in the Bill and why they are not all in the Bill. I know what my hon. Friend is afraid of. He says, "Unless I get my opportunity now, somebody in India will do these dreadful things without my getting any chance." Can I not persuade my hon. Friend not to move these Amendments if I give him an assurance, which I do, that when the Rules in regard to the franchise come from India, and are put before Parliament, an opportunity will be given in this House to discuss them, and, if the House wishes, to recommend Amendments. Surely that is sufficient. I can assure my hon. Friend that the recommendations of various people will be considered in framing these Rules in India. Let me say a word about the three recommendations that he now makes. I will deal with them on their merits, although I hope they will not be included in the Bill. As regards the residential qualification, I believe that the residential qualification provision is a bad one, because it is very little used. Its object is to ensure that candidates who stand for a constituency are really representative of that constituency. It is very easy to get a residential qualification.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not for a poor man.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. MONTAGU: I am not sure about a poor man, it he stands for an organisation. it was holly pressed upon the Government of India and upon the Joint Committee that there should be a residential qualification in order to see that we did nut get an urban representation of a rural constituency. The provision that this should be tried in five Provinces without residential qualification was suggested as a compromise. There is no reason whatever why you should not try different conditions in different Provinces, and if it is found that, the absence of residential qualification leads to good representation of rural constituencies, then I hope that the reservation in the three Provinces will disappear. My hon. and gallant Friend is always inclined to look with suspicion on anything coming from the Government or the local Governments in India. On the other hand, I would urge him not to reject the advice of the local Governments in India by whom this course has been endorsed. On the second point I am enthusiastically in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think that dismissal from the Government service should be disqualification. That is the recommendation of the Joint Committee. That is what is intended to be embodied the Rules, and at this time next year, or I hope earlier than this time next year, you will find that that condition has been incorporated, as recommended by the Joint Committee.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do you include imprisonment?

Mr. MONTAGU: The suggestion of the Joint Committee is that imprisonment for a, period of more than six months should be disqualification for five years.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then Mr. Tilak would be disqualified.

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know whether the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers has been out of prison for five years. If, as I have heard stated, he has been out four years, then, before these elections are over, the five years will have terminated. I believe that that provision has been copied from some other constitution, but it is one thing to disqualify for a term of years after a long term of imprisonment and another thing to leave to a Government Department the very task of deciding whether a man is qualified or not. I do not like the phrase "moral
turpitude" used by my hon. Friend. It is difficult to decide its meaning. Various experts differ on this.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have it in Acts of Parliament in this House.

Mr. MONTAGU: It is a matter of taste and opinion. I would rather not have it. I do not know who is to decide what is moral turpitude. The third suggestion is that a man may be a member of two Legislatues in India. There is nothing sinister behind the existing provision. It is a question of geographical impossibility. My hon. and gallant friend knows perfectly well the great distances that there are. It is not at all comparable to the case of simultaneous membership of this House and of a county council. These local Legislatures are Legislatures to whom will be entrusted very often the interests of 40,000,000 people. They will have great powers of legislation. They will sit at the same tune of year as the Imperial Legislature. They will have far more work to do in future. How can a man be a member of two Parliaments which may be sitting at the same time, one in Bombay and the other in Delhi, or one in Darjeeling and the other in Simla? I cannot see how it is possible. If a man is elected for both he can choose which he will sit for, but to allow a man to accept seats in two Legislatures of supreme importance would mean that he must be an absentee member of one of them. I am in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend on one point, but I think that all his Amendments would be much better moved, if they are to be moved, when the Rules come before the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the Committee will not accept the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that he hoped the Rules would be laid before the House by this time next year. The Committee has understood that the whole argument for pressing on with this Bill is the need of speed, and that it is essential to get this Bill through as quickly as possible. Now we are told that the Rules for the first election, which will probably be of vital importance—and I agree that the need of speed is paramount—

Mr. MONTAGU: You are not doing your best to help it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am doing my best. These Rules might
have to be framed for emergency elections which might have to be held to pacify certain parties. My friends and I feel that certain classes of people should not be differentiated against in their right to stand as candidates, as we fear otherwise will be the case. We look upon this first election in India as of great importance. It is a great historic event, and we want to make certain that the men who suffered for the cause of India shall not be prevented from standing at the first elections in the country for which they have struggled and suffered, and we feel that certain provisos should be put in the Bill in order to make certain that the first elections in India shall be held under democratic conditions.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will these Rules be statutory or changeable? If we could get a reply on this question then we shall be able to take it into consideration.

Mr. MONTAGU: They will be changeable, but when any change is made they will again be brought before the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Shall we be able to settle them by a vote?

Mr. MONTAGU: The House will be able to make recommendations to the Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When is it hoped that the first elections under this Bill will take place in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: I thought I had explained that yesterday. You cannot arrange that until the Bill is through. I want the first elections to be held in November, 1920, in order that the first session of the new Council will open in January, 1921. In order to do that, I want the Bill through as quickly as possible. I am sorry that through a slip in my speech I should have misled the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the date.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. SPOOR: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the words
Provided further that the Rules under this Section shall be so framed as to provide that every ex-sepoy, ex-officer and non-commissioned officer shall be entitled to be a voter.
I wish to deal with three or four Amendments down on the Paper concerning the franchise proposals under the Bill. The great difficulty in considering the whole question is that so much is left to Rules, that the House is at a loss to understand
what kind those Rules will be and what actually is going to occur. The first point to be discussed is the power to have an alteration of those Rules when they come before us. These Amendments have been brought forward not in any spirit of unkind criticism, but for a very constructive purpose. It is quite evident that the Government has no intention of accepting any Amendment on the Paper. They are trying to pass the Bill, as was said by an hon. Member yesterday, without the alteration of a single comma. At the same time I feel that a very distinct purpose is served by this discussion, isasmuch as it will convey to the Government of India the desire which exists in Parliament that when these Rules are shaped, even in the first instance before they come here, they shall be so framed as to meet with the approval and express the real wishes of this House. The franchise proposed in this Bill strikes those of us who have been intimately considering it, as it must strike those who have not been doing so, as absurdly limited. When one thinks of a great country like India with its population of 315,000,000, and when one remembers that it is proposed to enfranchise about 2 per cent. of these people, it is really difficult to believe that we are even taking a step in the direction of democratic sell-government in that country.
I am simply expressing what every member of the Select Committee felt when I say that those of us who have considered this question at some length, and in some detail, agree that the franchise should at the earliest possible moment be widened considerably. There are differences of opinion as to where that widening should be effected. There was disagreement as to whether this class or that class should be included, but there was general agreement, and I believe a very general desire even among the conservative-minded members of the Committee, that the electorate should be made at the earliest moment as wide as possible. In the course of the sittings of the Committee Amendments were proposed, and in one case an Amendment was actually carried, though at a later meeting of the same Committee that Amendment, coming up again with some fresh information from the Government of India, was negatived. That is the Amendment which I am now proposing. I imagine that it will meet with general approval in all parts of the House. When the War broke out the people of India showed a loyalty to the British Empire
that, to put it mildly, was surprising to some people, at all events. They contributed during the progress of the War in men and money in a truly remarkable manner. Over a million of their men came on. They were not conscripts. They were volunteers. Every man who has come into touch in any capacity with Indian soldiers will admit that, whatever else they may lack, they certainly have never lacked courage. Large numbers of them laid down their lives, and we ask that these men who were good enough to fight for us, whatver their class in India may be, should have the right to vote.
The position of the Indian soldiers is a peculiar one. When I have been discussing with friends the conditions obtaining in India I have always found great surprise manifested by people when they have learned the way in which the widows of Indian soldiers have been treated now that the War is over.
They find it difficult to believe that the wives of these men, who laid down their lives in the interests of the Allied cause, are to-day paid a pension of 1s. 6d. a week. As far as I know, that amount has never been increased from the start of the War, although we do know that the cost of living in that country, as in others, has very considerably advanced. I submit that justice has most certainly not been done to the widows of Indian soldiers. We ask that, so far as the men who have been spared are concerned, the men who have fought in this terrific struggle, they shall be entitled to whatever protection the exercise of the vote will give them. If this Amendment was left to the considered Judgment of this House, I feel that it would be accepted without even the necessity of a Division. I cannot imagine any member of this Assembly, or of any other, who would have the temerity to get up and oppose a proposal of the kind. As I have already said, when it came before the Select Committee, that Committee, I believe with complete unanimity, accepted it. Later on that decision was reversed. It was reversed, I believe, because of a telegram that came from the Government of India expressing disapproval of the proposal.

Sir J. D. REES: It was the Government of the Punjab.

Mr. SPOOR: It was pointed out that 1,000 men would be enfranchised if the proposal were adopted. Whatever their opinion may be, the proposal as a matter
of common justice, I am sure, commends itself to the right feeling and the good sense of Members of this House. I feel that it is not a debatable question at all. The next Amendment on the Paper dealing with the franchise provides that the Rules under this Section shall be so framed that persons whose annual income exceeds 150 rupees shall be entitled to vote. Reference has already been made to the growing industrial class in India. That class is at present entirely without political power. Economically the conditions are very severe. There is not the slightest doubt that in the months and the years that lie ahead attempts will be made to improve the conditions of the industrial workers. I believe that no better weapon could be placed in the hands of the industrial worker than to give him a measure of political power. If that is not done he may resort to other, and perhaps less desirable, means of achieving his end. I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee by discussing the terrible conditions existing in India now—the fearfully low wages and the long hours. I know that there are settlements where improvements have been effected and where a certain amount of social welfare has been secured. But at the same time the fact remains that the economic conditions in the industrial areas are appalling. We submit that this class is entitled to special consideration, and that the workers should at the earliest possible moment be included in the electorate. I believe that that also is a matter upon which the Select Committee was in almost complete agreement.
The last Amendment dealing with this question is one which provides that the rules under this Section shall be framed so as to provide that every person who knows how to read or write in the vernacular shall be entitled to a vote. It is proposed to apply a simple literacy test. I believe that rather lees than 10 per cent. of the population of India are literate. My Friends here say 6 per cent. Even if this Amendment is adopted, it is not going to enfranchise a very large number. The whole object of the three proposals is to secure from the beginning of the working of this scheme the widest possible electorate; the most democratic electorate. It might be argued that the proposal of the second Amendment, that a wage-earning basis should be adopted, is not altogether a democratic proposition. I admit that it is not the basis which
I would ordinarily choose, but it appears to those of us who went into this question carefully, to be the only practical way at the moment. I believe that the present basis is tax-paying capacity of a certain amount. This was fixed so as to exclude practically the whole of the industrial workers. By making the basis a wage-earning capacity of 150 rupees per year, we include a very considerable section of those whose interests we are seeking to protect—seeking, too, to give them in their own hands the power by which they can achieve reforms in their own conditions. Again and again we have referred to the tremendous experiment that this scheme really is. A great deal of doubt has been expressed on both sides as to whether it is going to be a success. There are right hon. and hon. Members in this House who believe that the course of the Government is an exceedingly dangerous course. They feel that we are going very much too far. There are others who believe that it is a dangerous course because it does not go far enough. I am quite satisfied, from all our experience of government in this country and in every other part of the Empire, that the success of the scheme depends in very large measure, if not entirely, upon the depth and width of the electorate upon which this machine is built.
I move only the first of the Amendments to which I have referred. I am quite willing, if you, Mr. Chairman, will not allow the other Amendments to be voted upon separately, to take a vote on this Amendment alone, because I feel that the Committee appreciates the justice of this case and will support the request I make.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The vote will be on the Question whether or not this and similar Amendments shall be put here and now in the Bill, or whether the matter shall be left to Rules which will come before us at a future time.

Mr. MONTAGU: I fear it will be of no use if I repeat the arguments I have so often used as to the danger of making provisions which we cannot safely say can be universally applied statutorily. Once they are put in a Statute they are unalterable. You cannot make different rules for different Provinces, and you have gained absolutely nothing. I have said that often. The hon. Member starts by
saying that the franchise is unsatisfactory, and he seeks to increase its size. All that is known is that by a stroke of the pen so many more million people nominally have votes. Is the franchise so unsatisfactory? Hon. Members have again and again given figures, but not accurately. Let me give them. The direct franchise vote will give 5,179,000 males over twenty a vote out of a population of 60,182,000, or a percentage of the population of 8½ per cent. I agree that that is not as representative as we should like. But the present electorate in India is only 05 per cent. There is therefore an increase in the electorate seventeen times. There has never been an extension of the franchise in this country anything like it. You really must keep in your mind whether you can invent the machinery in sparsely populated country districts to enable people to exercise the vote. You cannot simply add millions of men to the register and trust to luck to give them a chance of voting. Everybody wants to do what he can for the gallant soldiers who fought for us, but it does so happen that a very big proportion of the soldiers come from one Province, the Punjab. I do not know how many this would add to the electorate, because I do not know how many soldiers would be otherwise qualified. Take my hon. Friend's second suggestion, with reference to the income of 150 rupees per year. How many voters is that going to add? He does not know, and I do not know. How are we to find out income? He does not know, and I do not know. He puts it in the Statute and leaves some other unfortunate person to find means of carrying it out.

Mr. SPOOR: Is it not a fact that the Government of Bombay actually prepared figures and ascertained the number of people who would be eligible under the proposal regarding 150 rupees income? That being so, does it not suggest that in the minds even of some officials in India there was the idea that as a practicable scheme this was not to be ruled out?

Mr. MONTAGU: I really do not know whether they have done so in Bombay or not, but in any case that does not mean that they have done so in other Provinces. My hon. Friend proposes to make it universal. The Committee have recommended that "every effort should be made to improve the representation of the wage-earning classes," but to make a statutory happy-go-lucky suggestion
that the whole of India should be treated in this way would be to do something which would stultify our legislation. As to the literacy test, I have seen a man in an Indian village reading a newspaper to a group of twenty, and is the man who can read the newspaper more intelligent than the men who listen to the contents of it? I think a literacy qualification and an educational qualification is the mast undemocratic and the most faulty you could possibly conceive. Let us get on to some of the other provisions of the Statute, and leave the franchise to be developed. We want it as wide as we practically can get it, but we do not want to have our proposals ridiculed by adopting a proposal putting on vast numbers of people without any thought of how we are going to get them there.

Mr. OMAN: As an example of the criminal carelessness with which this extraordinary Amendment has been drafted—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to make reflections of that character on his fellow Members.

Mr. OMAN: The Amendment has been drafted with great carelessness, and might, if passed in its present form, in the case of the ex-sepoys, include many people from across the frontier, and enfranchise possibly 100,000 aliens. Why should ex-sepoys and the other classes mentioned be given the franchise whilst those who served on Government armed ships at sea and Indian sailors generally are not to be included? That gives an idea of the want of completeness of this Amendment.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry once again to have to directly oppose and criticise what the Secretary of State has said. I will not say he ridicules, but he treats lightly our suggestions as to these particular classes of enfranchisement. Surely it would be of great assistance in the preparation of the register if it were known definitely that these classes were to be enfranchised without all the waiting and lengthy discussions to decide whether they should be or not. I believe it was intended in any case to enfranchise ex-soldiers who fought in the War, and that it was on the urgent representation of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, as most of the soldiers came from the Punjab, that this military qualification was cut out. That is contradicted, and it is said to be on the recommendation of the Government
of India. I withdraw my previous statement, and I understand that the representation came from the Government of India that soldiers were not to be enfranchised. I am glad to hear now from the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the wish of the Government of India, because that Government has always lauded the martial qualities of the martial races of India, who have always been held up to us as the people who supported our rule and did not agitate and have been loyal to us. An hon. Member criticised this Amendment because of the number of people of the frontier tribes who fought in our Armies might get the vote.

Mr. OMAN: Trans-frontier tribes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I see no harm in that.

Mr. OMAN: A number of them might come down from one place and swamp the rest of the electorate.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They will not be on the register unless they live in a village, so that I think that that is drawing a red herring across the track. I have a subsequent Amendment to this Clause, providing that graduates of universities shall be entitled to be voters for their own universities. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) spoke very eloquently on the right of women to be enfranchised. I hope he will support this proposal as to graduates of the universities and not leave himself open to the criticism that he was angling only for the feminist vote in this country. One of the great arguments used against enlarging the franchise has been that uneducated people should not get the vote, but in this case the people are graduates of universities. The graduates have been referred to as great agitators because they could not get briefs as barristers or patients as doctors. Surely the best way to cure agitation is to give the vote. I dare say they are agitators because they are politically and racially conscious. For that reason I think it is essential for the security of government in India that these very people should be enfranchised. I think it was suggested by one of the Provinces that retired soldiers should get the franchise, and I suggest the subject is worthy of more consideration than has been given to it. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that early next Session these Rules will be before the House, but they will be Rules made, I understand, by
the Viceroy in Council, and we will be told then that we cannot alter them and that they are the opinions of the men on the spot. There may be further troubles in India by that time, and we may be told that it will be necessary to push on with the Rules with all speed, and that any alteration of them might mean weeks or months of delay. This is our opportunity, if we are to exercise our sovereign rights over India as expressly stated in the Bill, to put in provisions which shall ensure that certain classes shall be certain of the vote. I am sure that this concession, if it were agreed to and cabled to India, would have a great effect. I believe it would have the same sort of effect as the declaration of the grant of self-government to Malta, which at once turned a Crown Colony which was in a state of open revolt against our rule into a colony burning with loyalty and patriotism for English rule. I do ask that these proposals should receive some little consideration, and that we should not commit these people to tread the long path of agitation, direct action, passive resistance, and the other means that afterwards they may have to adopt to get granted to them the right to vote for their own members to carry out the very limited functions which this Bill give to them.

Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid that nothing I can say or do will have much effect on my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken. There is inherent in all his speeches about this matter, the suggestion that the Committee which considered this question might quite easily, by a few strokes of the pen, have enormously amplified this franchise without any difficulty at all. We really have done our best to set up a franchise which, at any rate, will have the merit of working, and that is what none of these Amendments would do. If we were to enfranchise ex-soldiers it would probably be in one special area, and in that district you would absolutely swamp the constituency. If you tried to find out who were the people who had 150 rupees per year that would probably take two or three years. At present there is an Income Tax there, but only on those who have over 2,000 rupees per year. The other inquiry would have to be undertaken on a different basis which no Department has tackled. The literacy qualification would enfranchise school girls and school boys.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: My proposal is graduates of universities.

Mr. ACLAND: There is a proposal to enfranchise those who can read and write. Graduates in India usually graduate at sixteen or seventeen years of age, and I do not suppose we want to give the franchise at that age. These proposals would not work, and the Committee have tried to make a franchise which will work.

Mr. T. WILSON: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should bring these Amendments which have met with sympathy in this House, to the notice of the Government of India? A promise of that kind might be satisfactory.

Mr. MONTAGU: I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the report of the Joint Committee, Clause 7, (a), which deals with the very point.
Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not select any further Amendments on this Clause.

Major HILLS: Might I draw your attention, Sir, to an Amendment providing that every graduate of a university shall be entitled to be a voter?

The CHAIRMAN: We have already discussed that.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 8.— Sessions and Duration of Governor's Legislative Council.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not select any of the Amendments to this Clause.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 9.—(Presidents of Local Legislative Councils.)

(1) There shall be a president of a governor's legislative council, who shall, until the expiration of a period of four years from the first meeting of the council as constituted under this Act, be a person appointed by the governor, and shall thereafter be a member of the council elected by the council and approved by the governor:

Provided that if at the expiration of such period of four years the council is in session, the president then in office shall continue in office until the end of the current session, and the first election of a president shall take place at the commencement of the next ensuing session.

Mr. SPOOR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "There shall be a president of."
My object is to move in words providing that the Governor's Legislative Council
shall, before proceeding to the despatch of any other business, choose a member to be president of the Council and, as often as the office of president becomes vacant, shall again choose a member to be president. The president shall cease to hold office if he ceases to be a member; he may be removed from office by a vote of the Council or he may resign his office or his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the governor. Prior to or during the absence of the president the Legislative Council may choose a member to perform his duties in his absence.
This is a matter upon which there was some difference of opinion in the Committee. It was discussed at considerable length, and my Amendment simply seeks to ensure the appointment of a President by direct election. As the Bill stands, the proposal is that the President of the Council shall for the first four years be appointed by the Governor and that after that he shall be a member of the Council elected by the Council and approved by the Governor. The argument that was used in support of this paragraph in the Bill was that in these new Councils which were to be set up it would be extremely difficult to find men with the necessary qualifications and experience of Parliamentary procedure to act in the capacity of President, and it was further suggested that it might be found desirable to send out from this country men who had Parliamentary experience and who would be prepared to give four years of their life to go out there and assist the people of India in this work by taking over this responsible position. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there has never been any desire expressed by any responsible Indian for such assistance on our part, nor is there any strong evidence leading us to believe that there do not exist in India at the present time a very large number of men highly qualified to fulfil offices of this character with satisfaction to the Government they are serving and with credit to themselves. It might not appear to some to be a very vital matter, but it is to me. It is another one of those cases in which I fear we show a lack of confidence in our Indian friends, and I feel that the Committee would be well advised to reverse the decision of the Select Committee on this matter and allow the constituent members of these new Assemblies to select their own presidents.

Mr. MONTAGU: I think, if I were opposed to this scheme, I could not recommend any better way of prejudicing its start than by accepting this Amendment. These new Legislative Councils, which
some schools of thought in this country will watch with the greatest possible care, have a burden big enough upon their shoulders already without suggesting that they should find a man among their number, learned, I do not know how, in all the niceties and intricacies of Parliamentary chairmanship, to be president. Perhaps I should not be out of order, Mr. Whitley, in telling the Committee how often some of my Indian friends who have listened to these Debates this year have expressed their admiration of your chairmanship and wondered how long it would be before they could discover similar qualities and experience in India. We all want that day to come, and therefore the scheme that suggested itself to us was that the President should be appointed in the first instance and should be assisted by an elected vice-chairman, and after one Council has gone by and the second Council has been elected, that the appointed President should disappear and the elected President should take his place. That is not enough for my hon. Friend, who for some unearthly reason says, "I will not wait; I want to risk everything by insisting that that step shall be taken to-day, when in the Legislative Councils no Indians have had any experience of presiding over a Parliament." I submit that of all the Amendments that have been proposed before this Committee this is perhaps—and I say it without offence—the most unreasonable.

Mr. BENNETT: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken and I were the only members of the Joint Committee who held that at the beginning we should do as it is proposed by the Joint Report to do four years hence. There is no difference between the Report of the Joint Committee and my own view as to the ultimate object. There is to be an elected President, only we have to wait four years for him. It seems to me that that rather mars the gift which we are making to the people of India. We ought at the beginning, and I think we might safely do so, give them the complete gift of a Legislature electing its own President. I doubt whether there is any warrant for saying that suitable men could not be found. Of course, it is a truism that you cannot find men in India who have had Parliamentary experience, but you will find in any elected Assembly, whether Imperial or Provincial, that there are a number of men with experience
which, so far as it goes, would help to qualify them for the particular service they might have to render in the Chair. We have, for instance, in the Bombay Presidency, a number of past-Presidents of that municipality. The municipality of Bombay has a population much larger than that of one of our Dominions. It has a Budget of £1,500,000 a year, and a series of men who have successfully presided over the affairs of an important community of those dimensions have prima facie some qualification for taking up these posts which we have in view. Again, in the Universities, the Vice-Chancellors, though I admit they have been chosen by the Government, are evidences of the existence of a certain capacity for presiding over large and responsible deliberative assemblies. The Chancellors, whether of the University of Bombay or of the University of Calcutta, have been Indian gentlemen, mainly of professional antecedents, and one and all, I believe, have been successful in presiding over the senates of those universities. That does not go far, I admit, but it does go so far as to suggest that the Legislature would be able to find suitable men as Speakers of those Assemblies. I take it the first Speaker of this illustrious House was not fully competent when he first took the Chair, but that he learned, and the Indian Speakers would learn, and tradition would grow up round their office, and in time they would fully justify their choice. I do not press the matter further. I shall not support the Amendment in the event of a Division, for this reason, that it differs from the Amendment which I had on the Paper in some essential particulars. For instance, it does not suggest any termination of the office, and for that and other reasons I shall not support it, but I hold that the proposal is one which is worthy of being taken into consideration, and I know there will be a certain measure of disappointment amongst political circles in India if the scheme is started under the narrowing conditions which we now propose.

Mr. ACLAND: Is it not possible under the Bill and under the recommendations of the Joint Committee that in Provinces where persons of the experience referred to by the last speaker are to be found, those persons should be appointed by the Governor as presidents of these Councils? That being so, I think the point is met. The difference between that and the
Amendment is that, whereas those persons will very likely be appointed in Provinces where there are trained persons who have presided over these large municipalities, the Amendment would make it compulsory.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor) almost with contumely, and said it was impossible to find Presidents of these Councils.

Mr. MONTAGU: I never said anything of the sort.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman maintains that it is absolutely necessary to appoint Presidents of these Councils for four years, but all over Europe to-day are little Parliaments sitting and functioning without any practice or experience whatever, in Latvia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and so on. All these little places, with Eastern blood amongst their people, are appointing their own Presidents of Councils and electing them, as we have in this House elected Mr. Speaker, and I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not select any further Amendment on this Clause.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 10.— (Powers of Local Legislatures.)
(3) The Local Legislature of any province may not, without the previous sanction of the Governor-General, make or take into consideration any law—
(e) regulating any central subject;

Mr. STEWART: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3,e), after the word "regulating" to insert the words "currency or coinage or".
7.0 P.M.
I put this Amendment down because it seems a matter of very great importance. I think we must bear in mind that the trade of India is so great that, immediately she operates to fill her currency requirements, she really affects the trade of the whole world. I maintain that this subject is an Imperial and not a local one, and I submit that it should not be buried away in a book of appendices, but should be placed right in the forefront of the Bill. I am obliged for the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave me yesterday on this
subject, but, although his answer was on die whole favourable, he admitted the question rests on these Rules we hear so much about, and it seems to me there is a possibility, if this matter is left in doubt, that it may have the effect of endowing the local Legislatures with powers in Platters of tins sort. I put down this Amendment to make assurance doubly sure that nothing of the sort shall happen. I admit this is not the occasion to raise the question of currency, but let me give two illustrations of how the question of Indian currency affects this country and the whole world. When India closed her mints to silver in 1893, and instituted a boycott of silver, I am old enough to remember that I thought it was a very unwise action to take, and I think so still. They tried to do the impossible.
What has happened? Shortly after the War began she set to work to scour the world for what she scorned in 1893, and acquired all the silver she could secure from China. Had China been an organised country she would never have allowed it. The act of the Indian Government on that occasion was something like robbing a paralytic. She created a vacuum in China, and China, in filling up the vacuum, has placed silver in a high and an unhealthy position. One result, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted two days ago, has been to cause India to debase her subsidiary coinage. We see certain newspapers in this country advocating a nickel shilling, which would also tend to high prices. Foiled in her efforts to get silver, India is now buying gold to an enormous extent, and we in this country are left with paper notes, which also tend to inflation and high prices. It would be of very great interest if the right hon. Gentleman could say briefly how far the financial policy of India is regulated in India or is regulated in London. In any case, we do not want to run the risk of dealing with more than one financial authority in India, and we do not wish to have controversies between the central Government of India and the local Legislatures, which may arise if this question is left in any doubt at all, and I would urge this Amendment., because it is only really a drafting Amendment, and does not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give away a single point of principle. If he would look over the borders of India into China, he would find every province having a different standard of value, leading to great incon-
venience and utter confusion, The object of my Amendment is that we should lay down quite clearly that a similar confusion shall not be created in India.

Mr. MONTAGU: I quite agree with my hon. Friend about the vast importance of the currency and coinage. I cannot conceive of anybody giving any Province of India a different currency or coinage from any other Province. It is intended that the currency and coinage of India should be a central subject, and I can assure my hon. Friend there is not the slightest danger of what he fears. He says, "Why not put it in the Bill?" I hope he will not think that necessary. I have always been assured ever since I have been in this House that it is one of the greatest mistakes of Parliamentary drafting, which has brought about before now confusion in law, to specify one particular subject out of a category. We all agree there is not the slightest danger of currency and coinage ever being a Provincial subject in India. It is physically impossible that it should be without the assent of this House, and absolutely impossible that anyone should propose it. Therefore, I would earnestly recommend my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

Mr. STEWART: I certainly do not want to press the Amendment, but my right hon. Friend has not convinced me that there are any other questions analogous to this question of currency. In his answer yesterday to my question, he said:
The list of central subjects, when embodied in Rules made under Clause 1 of the Bill with the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council, cannot be varied except by Rules similarly made, and will, therefore, not be subject to alteration by any local authority in India. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1919, col. 372.]
We all know we are in absolute darkness as to what these Rules will be, and we do not know if they are put on the Table of the House that we shall be acquainted with the fact that they are there.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Business and Procedure in Governor's Legislative Councils.)

(1) Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section eighty of the principal Act (which relate to the classes of business which may be transacted at meetings of local legislative councils) shall cease to apply to a governor's legislative council, but the business and procedure in any such council shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of this Section.

(5) Where any Bill has been introduced or is proposed to be introduced, or any Amendment to a Bill is moved or proposed to be moved, the governor may certify that the Bill or any Clause of it or tile Amendment affects the safety or tranquillity of his province or any part of it, or of another province and may direct that no proceedings or no further proceedings shall be taken by the council in relation to the Bill, Clause or Amendment, and effect shall be given to any such direction.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Sub-sections (1) and (2) of."
Sub-section (2) of the principal Act is left in operation under this Bill, and it is that which I seek to omit, In sub-section (2) of section 80 of the principal Act no measure can be introduced by non-official members, and that means by any Indian, in the Provincial Assembly, without the previous sanction of the Governor, if the matter affects the revenue of the Province. This procedure, of course, prevents any discussion, and deprives the Governors of all opportunity of judging whether the proposed measure affects the revenue or not. Most of the Bills which will be introduced into these Provincial Assemblies must deal in some way with finance. They must involve some charge on the Exchequer, and to prevent any private member, representing, as he may, a majority of the Indian members in that Assembly, from introducing a Bill, seems to me to be stifling the activities of Parliament. Here, of course, a private Member can introduce a Bill, and we regard private Members' Bills, or the Government do, as somewhat of an excrescence on the activities of Parliament. But when we talk of Bills introduced by non-official members in the Provincial Legislative Assemblies, we must remember that that will be almost the principal duty of those Assemblies, and I do submit we ought to allow Bills to be introduced, even although they involve a charge on the Exchequer. The Governor's veto upon the Bill still holds good. There is complete freedom, as explained in the Joint Committee's Report. He is expected to apply his veto to any measure that is undesirable, but I do not see that we ought to prevent measures being introduced and debated in these Assemblies.
For instance, in the Bombay Legislative Assembly there was a Bill introduced by a member of that Assembly, a friend of mine, calling for compulsory education. That Bill under Sub-section (2) was ruled out as being an improper Bill to discuss. I am quite willing, and the Indians are quite
willing, that that sort of Bill should be vetoed by the Governor, but they do urge, and I think we have a right to ask, that it should be considered that a Bill of that nature should be discussed, and that discussion should be permissible; otherwise the Governor cannot possibly tell what the purpose of a Bill really is, and, in any case, it is much better to allow people to blow off steam in public. [Laughter.] I am glad the House' is beginning to value the freedom of speech. It is much better that any measure should be discussed, and that it should not be ruled out altogether from discussion, merely because it might involve a charge upon the Exchequer. The activities of these Parliaments are to be recommended and not suppressed. What would happen if this Clause is not amended? The majority of any legislative assembly, either in Bombay, Bihar, Madras, or any of the other places may desire to bring in a Bill. This Bill will be prohibited from being discussed. That is not, by any means, the end of the thing. You may have these non-official members meeting together, in a non-official way, in some other Chamber, and—quite unofficially—debating and passing this measure. It is true that that will have no effect. But is it not much more desirable that any discussion of that sort should take place in the proper Chamber, and under proper supervision, with the officials represented as well as the non-officials, so that both sides can be shown, rather than we should give rise to a sort of extra-legal assembly which will have all the limelight thrown upon it, and which will gain the kudos and the applause of the more or less unthinking public? Is it not more advisable to have a proper discussion than that sort of wholly informal proceeding? I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the possibility, later, either under the Rules and Regulations or otherwise, of allowing free discussion and amendment of any measure introduced by the non-official member, even though it does involve a charge upon the rates.

Mr. MONTAGU: The best way to reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to refer to the Manual Procedure of the House of Commons, with which I am sure he is familiar:
The House does not…proceed upon any motion for a grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of money to be provided by Parliament…except upon the recommendation of the Crown.
We have tried to keep the procedure of
these Assemblies similar, though not exactly the same. Therefore, I really think he has put down this Amendment under a misapprehension. Perhaps, if he will be good enough to consider it again, he will find that is so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is not quite the same thing. The Minister in charge of a Bill in an Indian Legislative Assembly is not quite in the same position as the Government Front Bench in this House. He has got the Governor and executive members of the Government to consider as well as his own wishes in the matter. We have not got Cabinet responsibility in India. If we had, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman would fit. Until we have we shall have difficulties like this cropping up. It is not fair to quote the Manual of Procedure in connection with private Members' Bills in this House in dealing with a problem which really is not comparable.
Amendment negatived.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words
has been introduced or is proposed to be introduced, or any Amendment to a Bill is moved or proposed to be moved, the governor may certify that the Bill or any Clause of it or the Amendment affects the safety or tranquillity of his province or any part of it or of another province, and may direct that no proceedings or no further proceedings shall be taken by the council in relation to the Bill, Clause or Amendment, and effect shall he given to any such direction,
and to insert instead thereof the words
or any Amendment to a Bill is passed by the Legislative Council, the governor may certify that the Bill or any Clause of it or the Amendment directly affects the safety or tranquillity of his province or any part of it or of another province and thereupon the Bill, Clause, or Amendment shall be deemed not to have been passed.
This Amendment deals with a. similar subject to the last, but does not involve any charge upon the Exchequer. Here, too, it seems to me that freedom of discussion is the best thing to allow. You have got the natural desire of the elected representatives of the people to the Legislative Assembly to act upon the promises they have made to their electorate. Are these people to be debarred from raising a question or putting forward a Bill, or—more important still—a proposal to repeal some existing statute by saying that the measure affects the safety or tranquillity of the Province? We all agree that anything which does affect the safety or trait quality of the Province ought not to be passed into law. I am quite ready to
assent to that proposition. What we do say is that discussion ought to be allowed. We say it with the more force because under the present procedure, as I understand it, of the Provincial Assemblies you can discuss a Bill of this sort in detail, and veto does not take place until the Bill has been discussed. This is, in effect, a retrograde measure depriving these local Legislatures of rights they already possess. It is a step backward. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary. I hope that I am wrong in my surmise that this is intended to detract from the existing powers of the existing Provincial Assemblies. In any case, on abstract principles I believe it is better to allow people to produce their measures and debate them, and have answers given by officials in these Assemblies so that they may get circulation in the Press which we all agree is so desirable. We ought not to stifle, discussion, and so turn it into channels which will not be as satisfactory to the administration as debate in open house is.

Mr. MONTAGU: The Governor remains responsible for the safety and tranquillity of the Province. Is it conceivable to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are two kinds of safety? I am quite prepared to agree that it is not in the least likely that a majority of the Legislative Council would wish to discuss a Bill affecting the safety and tranquillity of their Province—in which case this Clause would not be operative. I have never yet heard of a Legislative Council which has not got some curious members, and if one man wishes to debate a measure which it is not in the public interest to debate—some attack upon a sect; something that would disturb the peace of a neighbouring Province; some racial matter. These things are not intended to apply from day to day. Nobody hopes more than I do that these precautions will not be necessary. But if you are passing an Act you must provide for every contingency. If you are leaving the Governor of the Province responsible to this House for the safety and tranquillity of his Province, you ought to arm him with power to prevent discussion of a matter which, in his opinion, would jeopardise that safety and that tranquillity.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Really, the right hon. Gentleman is playing with his Liberal principles. He knows perfectly well, as we all know, that it is much better to allow both parties to state their case.
If you have an unpopular member introducing an unpopular subject into any of these assemblies he will be answered—as I am being continually. A case would be made against him. Otherwise you make a man a martyr. His views get into the Press just the same, and the other side of the case is not stated. The real reason we are educated politically in this country is because we have trained ourselves to listen to both sides, and to choose fur ourselves between right and wrong. I think it is a stupid policy, depriving a country like India, which is beginning its political career, of the chance of educating itself in exactly the same way as we have done—by hearing what is false and true, and learning which is the best way out.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 (Return and Reservation of Bills passed by local legislatures), 13 (Provision for case of failure to pass legislation), and 14 (Vacation of seats in local legislative council) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Constitution of New Provinces, etc., and Provision as to Backward Tracts.)

(1) The Governor-General in Council may, after obtaining an expression of opinion from the local government and the local legislature affected, by notification, with the sanction of His Majesty previously signified by the Secretary of State in Council, constitute a new governor's province, or place part of a governor's province under the administration of a deputy-governor to be appointed by the Governor-General, and may in any such case apply, with such modifications as appear necessary or desirable, all or any of the provisions of the principal Act or this Act relating to governors' provinces, or provinces under a lieutenant-governor or chief commissioner, to any such now province or part of a province.
(2) The Governor-General in Council may declare any territory in British India to be a "backward tract," and may, by notification, with such sanction as aforesaid, direct that the principal Act and this Act shall apply to that territory subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed in the notification. Where the Governor-General in Council has, by notification, directed as aforesaid, he may, by the same or subsequent notification, direct that any Act of the Indian Legislature shall not apply to the territory in question or any part thereof, or shall apply to the territory or any part thereof subject to such exceptions or modifications as the Governor-General thinks fit, or may authorise the Governor in Council to give similar directions as respects any Act of the local legislature.

Colonel YATE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
The report of the commission of inquiry upon the various distinctive racial and linguistic
territorial units proposed to be formed as new provinces shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if approved by Resolution of both Houses shall be submitted by the Secretary of State for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, and upon the signification of such assent by His Majesty in Council shall be attached as a Schedule to the Bill and have the same force and effect as if it formed part of the Bill, and the Bill shall not be brought into operation till the Report has been considered and the Schedules attached to the Bill.
What I want to point out is that the question with which the Amendment deals is one of the most important before us in the whole Bill. There is reference at the conclusion of the Joint Committee's Report to the opposition which may arise between the minority and the majority on the local Legislative Councils, and to get any agreement upon this point between the, different races and nationalities would be very difficult.

Mr. MONTAGU: I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a question. This Amendment begins. "The Report of the Commission of Inquiry upon the various distinctive racial and linguistic territorial units." What Commission of Inquiry does he mean, and what Report? I submit as it stands it is meaningless, because it refers to nothing in the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: What is the Commission and Inquiry to which this Amendment refers. Is it in existence?

Colonel YATE: This Commission of Inquiry is to be appointed by the Secretary of State.

The CHAIRMAN: Under what Statute?

Colonel YATE: It comes in the Report of the Joint Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not statutory. The Amendment is not in order.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 (Saving) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Indian Legislature.)

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Indian legislature shall consist of the Governor-General and two chambers, namely, the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly.

Except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, a Bill shall not be deemed to have been passed by the Indian legislature unless it has been agreed to by boil chambers, either without Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed to by both chambers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, to leave out the words, "two Chambers, namely, the Council of State and."
I do not think the Labour party would be doing its duty if it allowed this Clause to pass without a protest. We do not see the necessity even for a double-Chamber system in this country, still less in India, more especially when the Second Chamber and the Council of State is, according to the Report of the Joint Committee, going to be elected in the same way as the Indian Legislative Assembly itself. The Joint Committee have done their best in this matter, and they have tried in every sort of way. Their Report is absolutely non-committal. This is to be an elected Council of State, the sole difference between that and the Legislative Assembly being that the Government have a few more members on the Council of State than on the Legislative Assembly. Before our passionate devotion for a Second Chamber leads us to graft it on an Indian Government, I think we ought to have some idea as to the distinction which is going to be made between these two Houses, because it appears to me that you are simply duplicating the other Chamber. This will add to the trouble of legislation without the slightest improvement in the legislation that is passed.
Under the Montagu-Chelmsford Report the duties of the Council of State were quite different, and the Committee came to the conclusion that it was not only false tactics but bad policy to rely upon the official block overruling the elected representatives. In the Provincial Assemblies they had the Grand Committee system, which was to overrule any legislation contrary to the wishes of the Government. The same conclusion was arrived at in connection with the local Legislatures. In the Second Chamber you have this check Chamber maintained, although any possibility of it acting as a check has gone. You have got the unnecessary Second Chamber pushed into this Bill simply because there are so many politicians in this country who love the House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] That is what it is done for. On this side we object to importing a sham House of Lords into India to do nothing but register the decisions of the Second Chamber or overrule them, and they may be even more ultra-nationalist than the Legislative Assembly. You are only adding to your difficulties and detracting from what we believe to be the most important thing in an Indian Legislative
Assembly, which is to be an Assembly of all India and the home of future progress in India, and a repetition in India of this House of Commons. You are detracting from its power by putting in a proposal such as this, and it will be no advantage to the Bill or the British control during the whole transition period.

Mr. MONTAGU: I desire to suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that there is in India a very large body of opinion in favour of this Clause. This Second Chamber is not intended to act in opposition to the Legislative Assembly. It is elected for a different term of years by a different electorate to act as a revising body, and will be able to compose its differences with the Lower Chamber by means of a joint session. I cannot believe that a body of that kind in a country like India is a bad Parliamentary body.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. and gallant Member opposite had read all the evidence, he would find that not merely from England, but from India, there was a general recognition that this council might be a body of the greatest: possible value to India, and it received a considerable measure of Indian support. There are many able native politicians in India who might not be prepared to stand the racket of an election, and they might be very suitable persons for indirect election either by the Provincial Legislature or under some special franchise, and they would be very valuable persons to include in the Council of State. Many of these men have had valuable experience in the public life of India, and this proposal enables their services to be utilised. For that reason we came to the conclusion that a Second Chamber—calf it what yon will—will be a most valuable institution to the Indian people in working out and developing their future political institutions in their own way. This proposal is only for ten years, and we thought that for the first ten years we should see if they could get a useful body in this way.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is quite true that I have not read all the evidence, because I was excluded from that Committee. At the same time, I do not think we ought to take all the evidence which comes from India as being the representative voice of all Indians. They mostly represent the people who can afford to spend money upon looking after the interests of India, and the new capitalists
in India are not the people whom I would absolutely trust with the government of India. In the Second Chamber you are going to have this special capitalistic interest represented. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said so?"] If not, what do special electorates mean? I deprecate the introduction of a Second Chamber which may have the approval of the rich people only, and which may tend to strengthen a hold upon the future government of India which this House would universally deplore. We want to see India democratically governed, and not governed by vested interests.

Earl WINTERTON: I should like to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the fact that he has done a good deal of harm in the Debate by again showing the utter inconsistency of his attitude, which is typical of the attitude he takes on every Bill. There is not a person who comes to this country from abroad whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not metaphorically embrace if he has any grievance against this country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has indulged in what I may describe as a very badly argued speech, and he has stated that you cannot always agree with the views of the people who come to this country from India. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bear that in mind, because we wish to hear less of the views of the hon. Member's friends in India and more of the people of India.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: I want to ask the hon. and gallant Member to let us get on with the business.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have heaps of time before five o'clock in the morning. The Noble Lord opposite has referred to people from the Dominions who come to me with their grievances. All I can say is that when people come to me with grievances I sift them. I do not take everything they say as being true, but I apply a proper test, and when I find their grievances are genuine, well-founded and justified I bring them forward, and I shall continue to do so. The Secretary of State knows that in this Debate I have more the confidence of the whole of India than any other hon. Member speaking in this House. Let anybody who doubts that apply his mind to the Indian Press—

Earl WINTERTON: Is Mrs. Besant India?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The whole people of India have the same feelings as ourselves. They, too, hate injustice, and they, too, have some faith in a country which has one or two people who will speak up against injustice.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 (Council of State) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 19.—(Legislative Assembly.)

(1) The Legislative Assembly shall consist of members nominated or elected in accordance with. Rules made under the principal Act.

(2) The total number members of the Legislative Assembly shall be one hundred and forty. The number of non-elected members shall be forty, of whom twenty-six shall be official members. The number of elected members shall be one hundred:

Provided that Rules made under the principal Act may provide for increasing the number of members of the Legislative Assembly as fixed by this Section, and may vary the proportion which the classes of members bear one to another, so, however, that at least five-sevenths of the members of the Legislative Assembly shall be elected members, and at least one-third of the other members shall be non-official members.

(3) The Governor-General shall have the right of addressing the Legislative Assembly, and may for that purpose require the attendance of its members.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that there is much in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) to insert the word "directly."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is very important. It is a question whether the Legislative Assembly is to be directly or indirectly elected.

The CHAIRMAN: Then, perhaps, the hon. Member might move.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "or," to insert the word "directly."
The Bill leaves it open. The recommendation of the Joint Committe was strongly in favour of direct election, but left it open to the Governor-General and the Council in India to decide whether it was practicable or not. I want to lay it down that the Legislative Assembly should be directly elected, and thereby make it comparable with the House of Commons, instead of having it indirectly elected and representing nobody but those upon it. We want to start this new
Indian National Assembly upon the most democratic lines. It is true that we have not a decent franchise, but we shall get it. If you start this Indian National Assembly indirectly elected, it will be very difficult to get rid of that indirect election at the next stage. I know that there are all sorts of difficulties—the size of the electorate, and things of that sort—but there is no finality in the numbers that have been put down for the Assembly. The number put down is 140, but I have an Amendment to make it 240. In any case, we want to see that the Indian Legislative Assembly, when it gets into working order, is a directly-elected Assembly capable of expansion and really representative of the electors of the country, instead of some form of indirect election drawn from foreign countries, which is not in accordance with British traditions and which is wholly alien to our system of representative Government.

Mr. MONTAGU: I find myself in cordial agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend as to the advantages of direct election. I do not believe that you can really ever make a representative institution except by direct election, and I happen to know by telegraphic correspondence with the Government of India, that they are hoping to devise a system of direct election that is what they are aiming at, and in all human probability that will he the scheme that my hon. and gallant Friend will find will come before us. There is, however —and that is why the Joint Committee did not leave the words in the Bill—a possibility that a direct electorate cannot be devised in time for the first starting of the Bill. I do not think that it is likely to occur, but it will not be fatal to have for the first ten years or perhaps for a shorter time, indirect election. After all, the local Governments of India, time local Legislatures, are indirectly elected now. They have proceeded through indirect election to the direct election that they are going to get under this Bill. It would not be an incontrovertible disaster if, for instance, the first Legislative Assembly in India were indirectly elected by the members of the municipalities and the local Government bodies in the rural districts.

Colonel YATE: If the election is to be direct, the question in my last Amendment, which was ruled out of order, becomes very important. The first Bill said that the elected members of the
Council of State should be twenty-four. In the second Bill the Joint Committee have entirely overruled that, I believe against the wishes of the Government of India. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us whether the Government of India agree to it. The Joint Committee have put in that not more than twenty shall be official members. We ought to retain the figures in the original Bill that not more than twenty-four shall be elected members.

Mr. MONTAGU: On a point of Order. This is really very difficult to follow. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) suggests an Amendment relating to the Legislative Assembly, and the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division (Colonel Yate) is addressing himself to the question of the number of official members of the Council of State. I do not see how the two things are related.

Colonel YATE: I understood that we were talking about the Council of State.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but I am afraid that my attention was straying for the moment, and I did not notice.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. OMAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "forty" ["one hundred and forty"], and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."
All my Amendments on this Clause are linked together and are repetitions of the first Bill. I want to have from time right hon. Gentleman all explanation why the figures of the first Bill with regard to the Legislative Assembly have been varied very much in the direction of increasing the proportion of the elected members to the whole. I think that we are entitled to be told why this change has been made.

Mr. MONTAGU: The Committee came to the conclusion that the Southborough Committee's recommendations for election to the Legislative Assembly were not good ones, and they wanted to substitute a scheme of direct election. Now that you have an unofficial majority it does not really matter what the size is, and the advantages therefore are wholly in favour of these figures. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yate) is continually saying that he does not know what the opinion of the Government of India is, though the opinion of the Government of India was treated at great length in the evidence be-
fore the Committee. I have here a private telegram from the Viceroy addressed to me at the time that he was on tour at Madras and could not consult his Government, and I will read it—
The Government of India are well aware of the immense difficulties of the task which has confronted the Joint Committee and are grateful for the patient care with which that task has been discharged. They have put their views fully before the Joint Committee, and now after much delay a decision at last seems about to be reached I feel sure that the Government of India would not wish to delay by one day the carrying into effect of the Joint Committee's recommendations. Speaking for myself, I feel sure that the Government of India will accept the decisions reached and will endeavour loyally to give effect to them.
That was followed a day later by an official telegram from the Government of India, which I will also read. It begins m exactly the same way and continues:
Now after much delay a decision at last seems about to be reached, they would urge no delay in legislation. They will cordially accept the decisions reached by Parliament and will endeavour to the best of their ability to carry them out.
I take these two telegrams to mean that they have expressed their views before the Joint Committee, and they now want immediate legislation ad the result of the Joint Committee's Report. I only mentioned that because my hon. and gallant Friend continually asks the question, and now that I have read the telegrams that I have received perhaps he will be more satisfied.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I urge the vital importance of having this Indian Legislative Assembly as large as possible? We do not want the Indians to get the idea that we are trying to split up India into eight Provinces in order to play them off one against the other, or to denationalise the Indian people and make them Bengalese or inhabitants of Bombay. We want to keep right in the foreground the fact that India itself is an entity and a nation. Therefore, we ought to do all that we can to emphasise the importance of the Indian Legislative Assembly, and not give the impression that we are playing the old game of divided rule. It would be of the greatest assistance to the smooth working of the Bill in India if we could get some sort, of statement from the right hon. Gentleman that he realises that the Indian Legislative Assembly is the kernel of the whole Bill, and that increase. of power, and in time responsible government, will come to that Assembly,
and that we do realise that we are not splitting up India, but that the Indian Legislative Assembly is going to be the House of Commons for the whole of India.

8.0 P.M.

Colonel YATE: I entirely disagree with the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. We have a very curious anomaly before us at the present time. We have now a Committee sitting, a devolution Committee, trying to devise separate Houses and Legislatures for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and here we are in a Committee of which the Secretary of State is a member trying to nationalise the whole of the 250,000,000 people of India. If we cannot make Ireland and England one nation, in one Parliament, in Heaven's name how are we to make India one nation? We have in India far greater diversity than in Europe. How are we to make one nationality of India? It is absolutely impossible. Every Presidency and every Province has its own particular difficulty. Look at Bengal with its 47,000,000 people, with the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal as distinct from the rest of Bengal. Everyone of these nationalities will require separate treatment. You can not make them all one nation. That is impossible, and we must try to give self-government to all the different nations and help to keep the peace between them, because the pax Britannica is once removed they will be at one another's throats. We rescued them from chaos 100 years ago, but if we should follow the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman we should soon again have them in the same state of chaos, and again we would have to rescue them, and to bring the pax Britannica to them a second time. I hope, therefore, the proposal of the hon. Member will not be accepted, but that we shall give them a form of self-government which will work properly as between men of all races, sects, and colours.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 (President of Legislative Assembly), 21 (Duration and Sessions of Legislative Assembly and Council of State), 22 (Membership of both Chambers), and 23 (Supplementary Provision as to Composition of Legislative Assembly and Council of State) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 24.—(Business and Proceedings in Indian Legislature.)

(1) Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section sixty-seven of the principal Act (which relate to the classes of business which may be transacted by the Indian legislative council) shall cease to have affect.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Sub-sections (1) and (3)," and to insert instead thereof the words "Sub-section (1), paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2), and Sub-section (3)."
This Clause deals with the business and proceedings in Indian Legislatures, and, generally speaking, the provisions of Clause 24 are similar to the Clause already dealt with dealing with the Provincial Legislatures. The point I want to raise is as to the grant of fiscal autonomy to Indian Legislatures. At present the Joint Committee have gone so far as to recommend that India be allowed to put on Import Duties and that the Government, if they think lit, shall propose Import Duties to time Legislatures. But what Indians want, and what I think we ought to grant, is some measure of fiscal autonomy. I submit that the question of Import Duties should not be simply a question for the Governor and the executive, but should be dependent on the Assembly itself. What I am proposing to do is to leave out from Sub-section (1) to (3), and to insert instead Sub-sections (1), paragraph (a) of Subsection (2), and Sub-section (3), and if that alteration is made it will be possible to introduce legislation imposing Import Duties in India and to grant that fiscal autonomy which I think almost the whole of the evidence from India asked for. This is not merely a demand of the Congress party. It is also the demand of the majority. They want that feeling of responsibility which can only come from some control of the purse, and if the Amendment were carried they would have a beginning of control of the purse which would, of course, be developed in future years. During the early years of this experiment, are we not going to allow these people any sort of fiscal autonomy? This demand comes from all parties in India, and should be conceded, and now we have got over the principal objection with regard to duties being imposed in India on account of the interests of people in Lancashire or elsewhere in this country, cannot we go the whole hog and decide there shall be fiscal autonomy, and that the people of India themselves shall be able to
decide what duties shall be put rather than that the decision shall be left to the wisdom of the Governor, who is, in various ways, to discover what the people want. Why leave it to the Governor, and why not allow the people to feel that they have some control in this matter? In connection with Import Duties it is of paramount importance that the will of the people should be expressed, and it ought not to be left to be discovered by indirect means.
We are relying on the Governor interviewing all the vested interests concerned, bearing in mind no doubt the public interests and the interests of the consumers. Bat the people who will be interviewed, and whose desires will be translated into Import Duties, will be those who represent the vested interests. We all know that vested interests are powerful enough even in an ordinary representative assembly, but when a representative assembly has practically nothing to do I am afraid their power will be even greater. I am, of course, hoping that India will not impose any protective traiffs whatsoever. I know that if one is introduced it will work to the injury of the people of India, of the ordinary common or garden ryot and industrial worker. I say the people of India are entitled to express their own views as to what they want. If you leave it to the Government to impose these taxes, and if the people of, India subsequently find that they are not to their advantage but rather to their disadvantage, they will blame the British Government. The blame will not fall on the politician as it should do, and I submit it is only by allowing the elected representatives of the people to make their own mistakes that they will eventually learn to go right. If you put the duty on to the Governor, we shall have to stand the blame; we shall be accused of having imposed the duties, and the position of the British Government in India will be detrimentally affected. I know it is hopeless almost to expect any Amendment of any sort to be introduced into this Bill, but I do wish we could have that small amount of courage which is necessary for granting fiscal autonomy to this new democracy, so that time people may make their own mistakes and not put the blame for them on to our shoulders.

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope I shall be able to convince the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) that what he seeks to do is quite unnecessary. The proper plan of Parliamentary procedure is that fiscal
proposals should be proposed by the Government. I am quite in agreement with the hon. Member with regard to fiscal autonomy for India, and I would point out that it is not the Government of India which has been in disagreement on this point. It has been the Secretary of State. There has been no controversy between the officials and the non-officials. Most of the officials have been Protectionists. I myself, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, am a convinced Free Trader, but I hope the example afforded by Protection in India will make more Free Traders. I think it is only right, if India is to possess any key industries, that she should have the liberty of revising her own tariffs in what she considers to be the best way. Under these circumstances I think my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate the fact that this Amendment is not necessary. Any tariff proposed in India must be put into a Bill which can only be carried by the votes of the Legislature.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But the Bill will be such that it cannot be amended. It will not be possible to put Import Duties on other articles or to vary the proposal. The Bill must be carried as it stands.

Mr. MONTAGU: They can amend it, but, of course, the Bill has to be introduced by the Government. It is the responsibility of the Government, and, whatever its shortcomings, we must keep that responsibilty to the Government.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Indian Budget.)

(1) The estimated annual expenditure and revenue of the Governor-General in Council shall be laid in the form of a statement before both chambers of the Indian legislature in each year.

(5) The proposals of the Governor-General in Council for the appropriation of revenue or moneys relating to heads of expenditure not specified in the above heads shall be submitted to the vote of the Legislative Assembly in the form of demands for grants.

(6) The Legislative Assembly may assent or refuse its assent to any demand or may reduce the amount referred to in any demand by a reduction of the whole grant.

(7) The demands as voted by the Legislative Assembly shall be submitted to the Governor-General in Council, who shall, if he declares that he is satisfied that any demand which has been refused by the Legislative Assembly is essential to the discharge of his responsibilites, act as if it had been assented to, notwithstanding the withholding of such assent or the reduction of the amount therein referred to, by the Legislative Assembly.

(8) Notwithstanding anything in this Section the Governor-General shall have power, in cases of emergency, to authorise such expenditure as may, in his opinion, be necessary for the safety or tranquillity of British India or any part thereof.

Colonel YATE: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7). I wish to ask the Secretary of State if this change was made in accordance with the evidence given by Lord Meston before the Committee, or was it done by the Joint Committee because of evidence given by him; also whether the opinion of the Government of India in the general telegram he has read covers this?

Mr. MONTAGU: The general telegram was based on a full summary of the Report of the Committee and of the Amendments to the Bill. This Amendment was made by the Committee as a compromise after hearing evidence of Lord Meston on his own behalf. It was not in harmony with the evidence given by the Government of India through Lord Meston, but it was a compromise between the two. It was thought that this was the better procedure.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
It being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Captain REV. T. J. O'DONNELL.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I cannot say how deeply I regret that the Motion for which I have secured the adjournment of the House should in any way stand between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India and the progress of his Bill. If I were inclined to draw a moral I could do so. We are living in exceedingly strange times, when a Debate upon a great measure that proposes to confer freedom on India is interrupted in order to call attention to another example of the infamy which is carried on in the name of the British Empire in Ireland. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War is not in his place. Is there anybody here to represent him? I wait for the arrival of some of those august personages who
will be able to tell us something as to the situation which I will present to the House to-night, and to give some form of defence for the series of humiliations and insults to which a gallant soldier and a reverend gentleman has been subjected by the military authorities. This is not a matter that can be treated in this contemptuous fashion, and I should be very glad indeed if the Minister were sent for, and if, after the House has given leave to have this matter discussed, he were brought here, in order that we may be able to deal with it in the only way in which it can be adequately dealt with. My observations are intended for the Minister for War, and I want to know where he is. Will you send the Serjeant-at-Arms for him?

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I have no doubt that the Minister will be here in a moment. The hon. Member is quite capable of giving a preamble in the meantime.

Mr. DEVLIN: You are perfectly right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I could engage the House in an intellectual preamble for the next twenty minutes if this were not a serious matter. But it is a very serious matter, and therefore, if you do not object, I will allow the progress of the Indian Emancipation Bill to proceed, pending the time when we are able to discuss the latest phase of Irish slavery. I would like your ruling on this point. [At this point Mr. Churchill entered the House.]
I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War has now arrived, with a red box—a symbol of British freedom—from the War Office. I was rather astounded, after waiting for three or four days for some really sympathetic statement from the right hon. Gentleman, to find to-day that, after all the wiseacres at the War Office had put their heads together, the only result of it was the recital of a number of evasive statements bearing practically upon nothing, which the right hon. Gentleman read to the House at the close of Questions. I expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have come to the House to-day and expressed his own feelings of profound regret, and the reprobation of the Government whom he represents, for the treatment which was meted out to a gallant and reverend member of the great Australian military forces. Listening to
that statement, and reading it since, from beginning to end of it there was not one scintilla of regret expressed in it. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman was not very happy when he read it. It was not worthy of him. If a dog were treated in this fashion, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be sufficiently humane to feel that a wrong had been done and that indignation should be expressed. But when I find that a man like Father O'Donnell, a chaplain in the British Army, a captain of the Australian military forces, a personal friend of Mr. Hughes, the Prime Minister of Australia, a man who took a stand, in face of unpopularity of a most widespread character, and fought to rally the forces of Australian opinion to your side in this War, who joined the Army as a private, who became a chaplain, who by his own services in the Army raised himself to the position of a captain—for a man like that to be arrested because a sergeant of Zabern in Killarney chooses to make a charge against him, to be insulted and humiliated, dragged to Dublin from Killarney and thrown into a prison cell, to be subjected there to indignities that were intolerable, to be dragged over here to the Tower of London, to be tried by a court-martial, and then to be found not guilty of the offence with which he was charged—when he was acquitted by the court-martial one would have imagined that British fairplay, of which I hear so much and know so little, would, if it wanted to manifest itself at all, have found expression in an indignant and almost violent repudiation of this conduct from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman in whose custody is the honour and dignity of the whole Army, not only of England and Scotland and Ireland, but of the Army of every part of His Majesty's Dominions. I am not the only one who regards this matter as an important one. When I put the question the other day to the Leader of the House, and asked him for his opinion on this matter, he said:
I realise as strongly as the hon. Member the seriousness of this matter on account of its effect on Australian opinion.
He recognised the seriousness of it. He is the Leader of the House of Commons; he is one of the arch-priests of the Coalition; he is one of the guides of the fortunes of the Empire; and he realised the importance of this question. I am sorry he put it so low as saying that it was because of the effect it would have on
Australian public opinion. I should have imagined that he would have regarded it from the point of view of manhood, of fair play, of justice, but he only regarded it in so far as it affected Australian public opinion. And how did the right hon. Gentleman to-day deal with this aspect of it as it affected public opinion? Did he apologise to Australia? No. Did he apologise to Father O'Donnell, who was subjected to this wrong, this insult and this humiliation as the representative of the Australian Forces, who had fought with such gallantry and such incomparable glory in some of the noblest fights waged on the battlefields of France and Flanders? Not at all. One would imagine you were discussing the imprisonment of an Irish Member of Parliament. Instead of considering whether you had subjected to humiliation and insult a soldier-priest, you would have imagined you were dealing with the imprisonment of the editor of an Irish newspaper for stating the things he felt. Not a word from the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot and do not believe that when the right hon. Gentleman stood at that bench to-day and read that statement it was typical of his own instincts and feelings on the matter, because I should imagine from what I have known of the right hon. Gentleman that when a wrong had been done he would try to right it; when an injustice had been perpetrated he would endeavour to undo it; and when humiliation has been put on an innocent man he would endeavour to lift that humiliation.
But there was a greater humiliation than that which was put on Father O'Donnell, and that was the humiliation you put upon yourselves by the part you played in this transaction. I am not animated by the slightest personal feeling in this matter. I do not know Father 'O'Donnell. I have never seen him or even received a communication from him. I have no doubt that if he had sought an advocate in this House he would have sought someone more efficient and powerful as an advocate than I am. Therefore I approach this question from an absolutely impersonal standpoint. No doubt I know Australia. I spent eighteen of the most delightful months of my life there. I know the Australian people well, and I love them—a splendid race, who love liberty, a noble manhood inspired by the loftiest principles of freedom, a great Commonwealth, rich in the
glory of its own liberty, and anxious to see that liberty extended to others. With all its greatness, all its power, and all its potentialities I am proud of Australia, and when an Australian citizen is struck at, I care not whether he is a priest or a sweep, I feel it my duty to defend him, and to demand some reprobation for the indignity to which he has been subjected and some repudiation of those who have been responsible for it. What is the story of this Father O'Donnell case? He bears an Irish name. No doubt Irish blood runs in his veins. He was born in Australia, and he joined with others, like myself, in a democratic propaganda for the establishment of the principles of liberty for all small nations and for the termination of Prussian militarism. He did not stand alone, nor do I, nor my colleagues, for the suppression of Prussian militarism. He stood for the suppression of militarism as the enemy of humanity everywhere, because to me Prussian militarism is no worse and no better than British, American, or. French militarism. It is the same eveywhere. Wherever this. military Juggernaut is allowed to crush it suppresses all free speech, free opinion, free thought, and independent activity. Therefore, trained in the school of democracy, drinking in the principles, largely as far as this country is concerned, of Mr. Gladstone, I, like others and Father O'Donnell abroad, joined in this propaganda against Prussian militarism because we believed if we crushed it there we crushed it everywhere.
When the War was over and he had played his part he came back to the land of his fathers—I believe he was never there before—this small nationality which in his vision was to be the sharer in all the glories which were to come to the small nationalities of the world. What was his first observation? He asked someone, "Is there a reconstruction policy in Ireland? What is being done after the War?" Then he formed his own judgment, and said, "As far as I can see, the only thing they manufacture in this country is Sinn Feiners." He went on to give his views upon politics, upon the railway strike, and upon the merits of Lloyd George. He thought he was at an election and the Coalition candidate in the field. What did this military man charge him with? With sedition against the King and against the Government. He never mentioned the King's name unless to praise him. Even the witnesses
called for the prosecution admitted that he said King George was responsible for the settlement of the railway strike and not Mr. Lloyd George. But a second-lieutenant in the Army happened to be sitting in the room where this conversation was taking place. The priest met an Irishman from the North of Ireland who was slightly deaf, and he was speaking rather loudly, and this sergeant of Zabern, the second-lieutenant, came over and told him not to speak so loudly. He dared to give his views upon public questions, upon which we all give our views, but he gave them loudly in the presence of the sergeant of Zabern. He told him again to stop speaking so loudly and the priest told him to mind his own business. I do not know what his business was. When he was in the witness box he was asked and he said he was in Killarney partly for pleasure and partly for business. I believe the pleasure he was on was to engage in fishing and the business was to try to find out sedition. He was unsuccessful in catching anything in the Lakes. Having failed in pleasure, he said, "Let me try a little business. You will always find sedition in Ireland and so I must go and listen to this conversation." This clergyman who had fought for the rights of small nationalities, who had been four or five years in France and Belgium, who was a strong and as violent a supporter of the Allied cause, did not like the Government. After all that is not a terrible crime. No one likes the Government. I do not see why it should be sedition to dislike the government at Killarney and it is a sign of political prescience to hunt them at all the by-elections. But he happened to be in Ireland, and you are not allowed to dislike the Government in Ireland. It is a most criminal thing to dislike the Government in Ireland. I went to a meeting in the North of Ireland to denounce sweating and the raising of rents, and I was faced with an army of soldiers and policemen who were gathered there to prevent me from doing it, not, I suppose, because they liked sweating, but they thought I did not like the Government.
Immediately this conversation took place the sergeant of Zabern wrote down an imaginary conversation. Father O'Donnell talked about George and the sergeant of Zabern thought it was the. King, or at all events, thought it would be a good thing to think it was the King. On that he based his charge of sedition,
and he prepared his indictment of this priest upon this conversation which never took place unless in his own imagination. I put it. to Englishmen, what are they to think of a second-lieutenant in the Army going over to a strange country, partly on business and partly on pleasure, and, according to his own evidence in the Court, proceeding to take out a book and writing down the conversations which are being carried on in an hotel in the place which he visits? It was proven afterwards that what he had done was all wrong and inaccurate. That is all I say about that. I am told that he manufactured the book subsequently, but I do not make that charge. His imagination was fevered. He went to perform a dual function. He failed hopelessly in one function, which was to catch fish, but he said, "I am triumphant in the other, for I have caught a rabbit." So fevered with his success in achieving the second purpose for which he went to Killarney, he then proceeds to prepare this imaginary statement. What does Father O'Donnell say—
I left Killarney on the following morning for Rathmore, and arrived in Dublin on the 14th October. I had luncheon at the Gresham Hotel, where two ordinary military policemen asked me if I was Captain O'Donnell. I said I was, and they said that the A.P.M. wanted to see me. "What does he want me for?" I asked. One of the police replied, "I do not know, but he was down looking at the boat last night, probably about some men." I went with him to the Ship Street Barracks and saw the A.I.M. I asked him if he was Major Bagnall. He said he was. He asked me if I was Captain O'Donnell, and I said I was. He then asked me if I had been at Killarney staying at the International Hotel, and I said I had. He then said, "It has been reported to rue that you used seditious language in the hotel." I said, "That is absolutely untrue." He said, "Did not an officer come up to you and speak to you about it?" I replied, "He did nothing of the kind. He came up to me—which was just like his impertinence—and said that I was talking too loud. I said the man I was speaking to was deaf." Major Bagnall then said, "I have not a report here. I must place you under arrest.
Having been placed under arrest, he was subjected to treatment to which no officer in the Army ought to have, been subjected, and, in my judgment, he was treated in a way that was absolutely opposed to the whole spirit of military Regulations. If I do not make too large a draft on the patience of the House, let me, in Father O'Donnell's own words, give a sworn statement of what happened. He described the room in Ship Street Barracks in which he was detained in custody:
There was no proper provision in it at all. There were three dirty blankets which smelt in such a way that one could not go near them. There was no fire though the weather was shockingly cold and no convenience of any kind. The authorities refused to send to the hotel for his bag, which contained his things and the medicine which he was using for a cold. They refused also to allow him to communicate with anyone and sentries with fixed bayonets were placed outside his door. He was taken out in charge of three sentries with fixed bayonets under the gaping eyes of officers and hundreds of English soldiers. He was refused permission to see anybody except on a permit from Dublin Castle and in the presence of an officer. He sent for a priest to hear his confession, but when the priest arrived the officer said he had instructions not to leave and the priest had to go away. The A.P.M. gave him a slip of paper stating that he had been arrested for conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. That was not a charge. There was no reference to seditious words. When he sent for his solicitor and counsel the officer said he could not go out of the room, and they had to leave without being able to transact any business.
The right hon. Gentleman, in the recital he gave to the House to-day, was reading what was supplied to him by the military authorities, who are really the people in the dock in this case. This man was in the dock and was found not guilty. The right hon. Gentleman comes to defend the conduct of the military officers, and he goes to the very gentlemen who are responsible for the thing, takes from them their explanation, adopts as his own, and offers it to the House of Commons, and expects the House of Commons to accept it. I am amazed at the right hon. Gentleman.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I am not.

Mr. DEVLIN: Then you have a lower opinion of the right hon. Gentleman than I have. The statement of Father O'Donnell given in the box, the sworn testimony of this man, is a complete refutation of the reply read by the Secretary for War. I will tell the House why. If the reverend gentleman was stating things that were not true, why was he not cross-examined at the court-martial in regard to them? The right hon. Gentleman recited this evening a list of the great kindnesses that were everywhere extended to Father O'Donnell after his arrest. One would have imagined that this was not a priest-soldier dragged like a common criminal through the streets of Dublin, and put into your dirty, filthy cells, but that it was a Royal parade of some princely person. That is what one would draw from the statement read by
the right hon. Gentleman. I have read what the reverend and gallant gentleman stated in the witness-box. What do these military gentlemen do? They get one of the most eminent criminal lawyers in England to come over and carry on the prosecution. They brought him there because if there was any man alive capable of tearing to tatters the evidence of this soldier-priest Sir Archibald Bodkin was capable of doing it, and yet Sir Archibald Bodkin, with all the preparation which had been made, well-primed and well-briefed, never questioned one single, solitary statement made by the reverend gentleman in the box. Then the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House of Commons and asks us to believe that the prepared statement of a gang of Prussian conspirators against the liberty of a captain in the Army is to be taken as the authorised version of an incident of this character against the sworn testimony, uncontradicted and unquestioned, of the reverend gentleman himself.
One thing that was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman in his statement was that the reverend gentleman was not allowed to consult a lawyer as to his own defence for five days after he was arrested. This is not Father O'Donnell's statement. It is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It is the statement of the military authorities who supplied the right hon. Gentleman with his brief. What is their statement? It is this. That after dragging this man through the streets of Dublin and placing him in a dirty cell, they left him there, and for five days they refused to allow him to consult a lawyer as to his defence at the court-martial. The right hon. Gentleman unnecessarily went out of his way to drag the military authorities of Australia into this case. I do not quite understand the point of that. Of course, there was a court-martial. Was there a suggestion that there should not be one? We did not complain of it. So far as I know Father O'Donnell did not complain. It was Father O'Donnell who forced it. I have not seen Father O'Donnell. I do not know him, but I read a statement of his in the Press in which he distinctly stated that they were willing to let him go, and he demanded a court-martial, and the Australian Military Forces in London said, "If this Australian officer is to be tried he will be tried before us." If that man had been tried in Ireland he would be doing twelve months or more in gaol at the
present time. But there is still some remnant of the spirit of liberty left even among military men in this Australian branch of the Imperial Army, and they insisted that if one of their men was to be tried he should be tried before his colleagues of the Australian Forces.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): It is the invariable rule.

Mr. DEVLIN: If it is the invariable rule, then it is a good thing for once that the invariable rule exists, because whether that rule was variable or invariable—I will not use the expression, it might not be Parliamentary; but it was a very good rule for Father O'Donnell, because Father O'Donnell, instead of standing to-day with his character cleared and his reputation unscathed, would now, not merely have been for three, or four, or ten days in a dirty cell in Dublin, but would be doing time in some prison for perhaps twelve months.

Brigadier-General GROFT: If he was tried by Englishmen or Scotsmen?

Mr. J. JONES: If he was tried by Prussians !

Mr. DEVLIN: He would have been tried by people who would have been told that it was their business to convict him just because he was tried in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: No!"] Do not turn up your eyes in holy horror. Let us face the situation. Who was the gentleman who arrested him He was Major Bagnall, Assistant Provost-Marshal of the Dublin area. He went into the box and told his story. Listen to this evidence as a manifestation of British intelligence which should commend itself to the Leader of the National party. He said:
He had a wire from the officer commanding the troops at Killarney. He arrested the accused on his own authority. He was acquainted with the King's Regulations affecting the custody of officers.' Then counsel asked him:
Was this gentleman when he was arrested put into a room in which there was no sleeping accommodation?—I do not know.
Was he kept there by sentries with fixed bayonets?—I have not the slightest idea.
Who does know? —Presumably the officer commanding the unit to whom he was handed over.
Did you make any further inquiry as to how he was treated?—Not in the least; it was none of my business.
A fine chivalrous spirit of comradeship in the Army !
Did you read in the daily and evening papers Captain O'Donnell's affidavit containing the account of his treatment in Ship Street Barracks?—I do not read the evening papers.
May be he has been studying Mr. Balfour's life. I have not a, very high opinion of the intelligence of most of these people, but I do not know intelligence so low that it does not read the evening paper, and there are some intelligences low enough to read the morning paper. This is the gentleman who arrested this priest. He knew nothing about it. All he knew was that some Zabern sergeant did not like the conversation, the voice was too high, the notes were too loud, there was not sufficient music in this Killarney hotel for this man, and therefore he arrests him, throws him to anybody or nobody, lets him be flung into a cell, does not ask what happens to him, sees a flaming report in the evening paper and a less unparliamentary report in the morning paper as to what took place, and never troubles to read one or the other—and yet we have come triumphantly out of this War. The right hon. Gentleman to-day tried to make a great deal of the fact that they did not want to try Father O'Donnell at all and have a court-martial. That is perfectly true. There would have been no trial if this priest had not forced them to this. He says:
I could have dropped it at any stage. The military authorities were most anxious that it should be dropped. That, however, would not suit me. It is a remarkable fact that in this case the prosecution employed a leading criminal lawyer, who was permitted to use his Old Bailey methods against me, contrary to the provisions of the Army Act. Also the judge advocate was an English officer. The judge advocate, in my opinion, was entirely wrong in maintaining that an honourable acquittal could only be granted in exceptional cases. On the contrary, unless it could be shown that the accused was mixed up in disgraceful proceedings there should be an honourable acquittal. It was this that delayed the Court so long in corning to a decision in my case. There, were no exceptional circumstances in any way. However much the authorities try to save their face the case went against them.
It may be a very small matter that a junior lieutenant in the Army, instinct with the whole spirit of his class, goes into a hotel, listens to conversations carried on at the hotel, afterwards writes them down, goes out and makes a charge, and has a priest arrested. All that may be looked on as trivial, but the subsequent proceedings and the treatment of this priest are matters that concern the Army and the War Office. It was clearly proved that they believed this man guilty before
ever he was brought to trial at all. I am told that in this case it has cost him over £1,000 to defend himself. He has been misrepresented. Scandalous insinuations have been made against him, all of which have been disproved, even by the Zabern sergeant himself in the witness box.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Who?

Mr. DEVLIN: The Zabern sergeant. Did you ever hear of Zabern? Perhaps you cannot understand my Belfast accent.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would like to know to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring by the description "Zabern sergeant?"

Mr. DEVLIN: I will clarify the right hon. Gentleman's mind. His name is Second-Lieutenant Chambers.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Now I can identify him.

Mr. DEVLIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to know what he wanted in Killarney. He went down to Killarney partly on business and partly on pleasure. The mission of pleasure was a failure and the business was a triumphant success. I hope now that the right hon. Gentleman sits there a fully-informed Minister as to who he was, what he was, what he was doing, and what he has done.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sorry to interrupt. As a matter of fact I should not have found any difficulty at all if it had not been that the hon. Member was speaking of a lieutenant and referred to him as a sergeant. But for that I should have followed his argument.

Mr. DEVLIN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for my ignorance as to the status of these military officers. I remember that one of the things that inflamed me against Germany was the Zabern incident. Both the right hon. Gentleman and myself, when we were fighting against, Prussian militarism, had that in all our perorations. I have no doubt he has forgotten his perorations, but I have not forgotten mine. I have asked the House to express its indignation and its condemnation of the action of all those concerned in this transaction. I would have imagined, when the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious for delay, that he would have come himself and would have avoided this Debate, and would have uttered condemnation of the whole trans-
action. I am sure that he is as anxious as I am that the cause of liberty should go on in India. We have both interrupted a great Indian Debate that concerns the establishment of free institutions for the blacks. "HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I repeat, for the blacks; and, being in favour of any measure of emancipation and freedom for them, I am sorry that we have interrupted the progress of a great measure of popular appeasement. But here we are, come to discuss this thing and to take up the time of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to take the story of interested persons and to throw that at the House of Commons as his reply to an indictment of this character.
The only thing that counts with me is that this man was charged and found not guilty. Do you question the tribunal? It was yours. They had all the evidence; they listened to every story, every aspect of the question was tested and analysed, and counsel was brought from the Old Bailey with all an eminent counsel's qualities, to put this man on the dissecting table. But gallant officers of his own country and his own branch of the Imperial Army unanimously decided that he was not guilty of the thing with which he was charged and under which be was subjected to insult and humiliation. Not one word of regret has come from the right hon. Gentleman—not one word. Yet the Leader of the House has stated that he regarded the thing as important-, and the more important because of the effect it would have upon Australian opinion. Australian opinion does not count; no opinion counts if Ireland is involved. Captain O'Donnell had Irish blood in his veins. That was the gravamen of his offence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I repeat it. This incident may shock some Members of the House, but it is only one of a series of incidents that are occurring day after clay and week after week in Ireland. You would never have heard of it, probably, if he had not been an Australian officer. I am sorry for the whole thing, very sorry; but one can fairly well draw a moral from it. That moral is: Do not care how you outrage public opinion in any part of the world as long as an Irishman is involved. That is my deliberate conviction.
9.0 P.M.
I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman now, Is he prepared, as the chief executive officer of the British Imperial Forces, to express his condemnation of the arrest and the treatment of this
reverend and gallant gentleman? Secondly, what reparation is he prepared to give to this reverend gentleman for the insult and humiliation and expense to which he has been subjected? That is not a very large demand. If you do not concede these two things, Australia will come to the opinion, which I have arrived at, that if there is a race in the world that protests and revolts against militarism—that is practically what exists in Ireland to-day—if they protest against the imposition upon them of what was once the nightmare of the world, then they may look out for such treatment as militarists mete out to all who will not lie down and acquiesce in their policy. No matter what the National party may think of it, that is what it amounts to. I say to English Members here to-night that it is only another added to the many intolerable things under which Ireland is suffering. I say to Englishmen to-night that it is not the personal honour and the ill-treatment of a gallant soldier which are involved, but your honour and your name throughout the world.

Captain W. BENN: The House will excuse me if, in seconding this Motion, I do not treat the subject from the same point of view as my hon. Friend. I do not think it is a case which should be decided according to our political views, or according to the views we may hold about Ireland. I happen to hold the same views as my hon. Friend, but I treat this case purely as a case. I propose to inform the House of the circumstances of the case, and to invite hon. Members to give their judgment on it as a single and individual case. I interested myself in the case when I got to know the facts, and I am certain that hon. Gentlemen, when they hear the facts, will agree with me in the Motion I am seconding. First of all, who is this Australian padre who has been arrested? What is his record? The hon. Gentleman has referred to part of it. Captain O'Donnell was a priest in Tasmania. He resigned his parish because he was so enthusiastic in the cause of the Allies and desired to go to the War. He addressed many meetings in Australia, taking a great part in the movement for Conscription, which was then unpopular. I will venture to read an extract from a speech which was made at the beginning of last year by this chaplain, when he was campaigning on behalf of the Allies in the Dominion.
He said he had urged men to go to the War and many had listened to his appeal. He had
always desired to go himself, but was never able to do so till now, but the position was very critical and all should do their best. He never expected compulsion to be carried, but they should not desert the boys at the front. They must bend every effort if they were to win. He had always longed to be out among the brave lads of Australia, and the first duty of every true man was to go out with them.
This is the gentleman who came out and who resigned his cure and went to War as a private soldier. I suppose to whatever party hon. Members may belong they must sympathise with and admire a man who did that. So highly was he thought of in Australia that he was honoured by being the bearer of a letter from the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth to Field-Marshal Haig, and also a letter to General Birdwood, recommending him to their special attention and notice, and that letter was acknowledged by the Field-Marshal. That letter went on to say that the Rev. Father O'Donnell had earned and received the thanks of the Australian Government for the work which he had done. That is the man whose ease we are considering. It is not the case of a man who was wildly opposed to us, and not the case of a man with whose views we disagreed so much that we could not undertake to deal with him in an impartial and judicial manner, but the case of a man who acted as every true citizen of the Empire did in a time of great difficulties and made great sacrifices at the beginning of the War on behalf of the cause. That is the man with whose case we have to deal. As regards the charges, I am not going to say anything, as the chaplain was acquitted by the court-martial, and I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will for one moment go back on the verdict of that court-martial. Of course he accepts it when this officer was acquitted of the charge made against him, and I will say no inure about it. What I will say is this. I shall say a word about the character of the prosecution, and I shall ask the House to consider what was the way in which the prosecution was conducted against this reverend gentleman. The chief witness against him was Second - Lieutenant Chambers, and the first charge that was made was a charge of drunkenness. I shall quote from the verbatim report of the court-martial, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to correct me if unwittingly I make any mistake. I say that the first thing that was done by the witness was to make a charge of drunkenness against the reverend gentleman. The first thing
this witness did was to go to the manageress of the hotel where the reverend gentleman was staying and say to her that this officer was three-quarters drunk, and a suggestion of the same kind was made by another. Overwhelming evidence was produced to show that there was absolutely not a word of truth in that charge, and it was expressly stated in the summing-up that no sort of charge of that kind could lie. I do not know whether it was struck out or simply ignored, but in any case it fell absolutely to the ground.

Mr. DEVLIN: When Second-Lieutenant Chambers came to give his evidence he said in the witness-box that the priest was not drunk, and had no drink on him whatever.

Captain BENN: Certainly; but he had gone to the manageress of the hotel, and it was stated in evidence by her that it was not true, and also it was shown that in his bill there was no liquor at all. I really apologise to the reverend gentleman even for referring to it, but I do ask the House to think is that really the sort of way in which the right hon. Gentleman's Department should begin to treat a case against a clergyman who had come over here to fight?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No charge was ever made in the Court.

Mr. MacVEAGH: It was made outside.

Captain BENN: I do not suppose the eminent people who were employed by the right hon. Gentleman to try to ruin this padre would be so foolish as to lodge a charge of that kind, but the statement was made, and that was the point.

Mr. INSKIP: Where was it made?

Captain BENN: The statement was made to the proprietress of the hotel. I have stated the fact, and I shall leave it there. The witness made that statement, and then, of course, when the statement had been made and when they found it could not possibly be substantiated, they withdrew it. There never was a word of truth in it. Why should I go out of my way to defend this reverend gentleman except that I think he has been most unjustly treated? I come to the second part of the case against this padre. The principal witness, Chambers, first of all said, in his evidence, that he had written down
the words in a book while he was dining. He said he did so at the time the words were spoken. There were five people who were in the hotel dining-room at the time, and everyone of whom was unable to corroborate that statement, including the man who was sitting at the same table with the witness. I do not want to overemphasise this, but is that the way in which a case should be brought and pressed against a priest who comes from the Commonwealth to fight for this country? Let me come to the next point. The reverend gentleman comes to Dublin, and is put under close arrest. I must here tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not know the details of military law.

Mr. CHURCHILL: He was released and came to London.

Captain BENN: Ah, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right! As soon as he got out of the grip of the right hon. Gentleman to the Australian Forces he was released.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is thoroughly wrong. He was in the hands of the Australian authorities in Ireland. They took him over from the British military authorities. They brought him over to London, and, having considered the matter here, they placed him under open arrest.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is very specious in his interruption, but I will give the House the facts. He was placed under arrest on the 14th, and he was kept in close arrest until the 25th in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman's officials, when he was handed over to the Australians, and as soon as they had investigated the charge they found it was so flimsy that they put him immediately under open arrest. What point can the right hon. Gentleman make out of that? About this close arrest the right hon. Gentleman may probably show that this was ail justified according to the King's Regulations, and certainly he is in a much better position to argue that matter than I am, but I am doing my best to see that justice is done to a man who has been most unjustly treated. On this point of close arrest I should like to say that in the case of even a private soldier, and this was the case of an officer,
A private soldier charged with a serious offence will be placed in arrest… He is not to be placed in close arrest for offences unaccompanied by drunkenness, violence, or in-
subordination, unless confinement is necessary to ensure his safe custody or for the maintenance of discipline.
I do not know how the case lies as between officers and soldiers, but that is the protection offered to the private soldier. The right hon. Gentleman, who gets hold of an officer, keeps him under close arrest from the 14th to the 25th October. I do not know what the legal technicality is, but we all know very well—anyone who has had the honour of serving in the Army knows—that the object of the authorities is to render all possible assistance to a man under arrest and about to be tried by court-martial. It is not a case of prosecuting counsel or trying to get a conviction at all costs, but of giving what assistance they can. That, I think, is right as an interpretation of the spirit in which the law should be administered towards the accused person; but from the 14th October to the 19th or the 21st October the right hon. Gentleman refused the prisoner the right to see his own counsel unless there was an officer present. There is a very clear statement in the Manual of Military Law on the subject—
The accused is to have proper opportunity to prepare his defence, and liberty to communicate with his witnesses and legal adviser.
That, of course, means liberty to communicate in secret, for how can you possibly communicate with your legal adviser in the presence of the person who is about to be your prosecutor? So my third point is that the right hon. Gentleman, having got this priest in his grip, keeps him under close arrest for eleven clays, during the greater part of which he refuses him permission to see his legal adviser. There are other points which appear to have been overlooked by those who were in charge of this officer. The Manual says:
An officer placed under arrest should always be informed in writing of the nature of the arrest.
I think that means the reason for which he is arrested, but. I am not a. lawyer and I cannot say. I think it means that if a man is put in prison you must tell him why at the earliest possible moment, but that does not appear to have been done. On the contrary, the chaplain asked repeatedly what the charge, against him was, and all he was given in writing was a slip of paper saying he was charged with conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, which might mean anything. That might justify everything
that people were saying outside about drunkenness and all the other infamous charges which the right hon. Gentleman's myrmidons have been spreading about.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I, or my myrmidons?

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is responsible. If I could get the people who brought these odious charges I should be pleased. But in any case the right hon. Gentleman does not come down here and say, "I am very sorry that somebody has been over-zealous, and I offer a word of apology to this chaplain," who has been acquitted. Not at all. He pretends to justify up to the hilt the whole of the infamous conduct of those under his control. The case is then moved to England. I understand the accused was entitled to have the Australian court-martial in the country in which the offence was committed. It is very difficult. for a man in England to get witnesses in his behalf from Ireland, especially a man like this from the other end of the world, but he is shipped off to England, and he finds employed against him, not the adjutant of the regiment, not some officer detailed by the commanding officer to act as prosecutor, but one of the most eminent criminal lawyers of the day. Why? I should like to read what guidance the King's Regulations give on this point. They say:
A General Officer Commanding-in-Chief at home is to obtain the sanction of the Army Council before counsel is engaged to appear on behalf of a prosecutor.
Was that done? Was the sanction of the Army Council obtained for the employment of Sir Archibald Bodkin to prosecute?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

Captain BENN: The Regulations go on to say:
The assistance of counsel at courts-martial should be applied for only in cases of an exceptionally difficult or complicated nature, and this course should be very rarely necessary when the offences are of a purely military character.
The complications were there, certainly, but they were complications arising out of the conflict of evidence of the right hon. Gentleman's witnesses. But is there anything in this paragraph to justify the right hon. Gentleman getting the sanction of the Army Council to employ one of the most eminent criminal lawyers of the day to prosecute this poor, patriotic, Australian padre, who came here to fight for our cause? I think it is one of the worst
features of the case, and if you read the cross-examination which Sir Archibald Bodkin gave to this chaplain you will find, not that he was trying to elicit the truth in that calm, commonsense way which is prevalent at a court-martial, but that he was trying all the time to get him to commit himself. I will not read the text, but this is the sort of thing he said. He said, "You are an Irishman?" "Yes," said the witness. "You think Ireland is tyrannically governed by England?" "Yes, I do." And so do we, and so do I, most infamously governed.

Mr. MacVEAGH: So did Churchill at one time.

Captain BENN: He goes on and says, "I suppose you have not said so?" The witness says, "I do not know." And step by step Sir Archibald Bodkin attempts to get this, I suppose I might call him unsophisticated, man from the Commonwealth on to the slope, so that he can push him down and say, "Those are your sentiments." But why should the Army Council consent to have this criminal lawyer employed to prosecute and ruin this Australian padre? If the House will observe, I am not imparting political prejudice at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I dare say it does not matter. I dare say, hon. Gentlemen think an Australian padre is fair game.

Brigadier-General CROFT: That is imparting prejudice of the most disgraceful kind.

Captain BENN: I am trying to see that the gallant and reverend gentleman and his friends in Australia know that there are people in this country who think he has been infamously treated and who are determined to say so and to try and get this House to endorse their view.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH: rose—

Captain BENN: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one further question—who paid for Sir Archibald Bodkin?

Mr. H. SMITH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman slanders professional men who cannot defend themselves, and he will not give way.
Captain BENN resumed his seat.

Mr. SMITH: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. May I ask him whether the conduct
of Sir Archibald Bodkin, of which he complains, is in gross violation of the Manual of Military Law which he has by him, and does he persist in charging Sir Archibald Bodkin with deliberately breaking those rules and being guilty of professional misconduct?

Captain BENN: I am not making any charge. I should not, dream of doing so. In order to make it perfectly clear—and certainly in advance I shall withdraw what I have said, because I think that is what is fair. I shall withdraw everything I have said about Sir Archibald Bodkin, and will read the evidence, because I shall certainly never attempt in my privileged place in this House to make a charge I would not make outside. I suggest this cross-examination was more suitable to a Criminal Court than to a court-martial, and I suggest it is an amazing thing that the War Secretary should have secured the consent of the Army Council to employ an eminent criminal lawyer to use arts, which, after all, are the arts usually employed in that Court. Let me read the evidence:
You said you were an Irish Nationalist. Is it your view that the English Government has ill-treated Ireland?—Yes, that is my view.
How long have you held that sentiment?— Ever since I was born ever since I could think.
And you have expressed that opinion, I have no doubt, on many occaions?—Oh, yes, I have frequently expressed that.
Did you say in that room, 'When the time comes I shall come over and help the people in their struggle against the tyrannical English Government'?—No, I did not.
That is your sentiment, is it not?—No.
That is not your sentiment?—That is not my sentiment.
I suggest that, proper as that cross-examination undoubtedly would be—[An HON. MEMBER: "It was!"]—in an ordinary Court, it is not fair in a court-martial to submit an accused person to a cross-examination of that kind. Now I hope I have dealt quite fairly with Sir Archibald Bodkin, and I think I have made a point which seems to me unanswerable. I would like the right. hon. Gentleman to give me an answer to this question. Will he tell the House who paid for the services of Sir Archibald Bodkin'? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Treasury!"] The Treasury. It comes to this. The right hon. Gentleman when he said to-day in his answer, "Oh, we handed the whole thing over to the Australian Government. They had a court-martial. They dealt with it in their own way and acquitted the officer. We have nothing to do wit h that. All we have
to answer for is the sending from Dublin." As to who paid a King's Counsel to prosecute this padre in the Court, not a word is said. Is it right that the rates and taxes of this country should be used to pay a King's Counsel to prosecute. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not a King's Counsel!"] What does it matter? A learned gentleman prosecuted in this case.

Mr. W. THORNE: He is a lawyer, anyhow.

Captain BENN: I do not know what the real explanation of this case may be. It is very difficult to tell. Some think that the thing has been a mistake, and that the right hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong man altogether. I do not know. The "Irish Times," on the 19th December I think, said that the rev. gentleman had been arrested under a misunderstanding and was going to be released. I do not know whether that was so. Here is a curious thing. When that appeared in the "Irish Times" the Governor of Tasmania, Sir Francis Newdegate, who was lately a Member of this House, telegraphed to say the people of Tasmania were very glad to hear that this popular and influential priest had been released. So I think a mistake has been made from the very beginning. Here is another point. When Lieut. Chambers, who was a witness against the padre, got his evidence together, he went to the head of the hotel and said, "Oh, that fellow is not a captain." This officer was wearing a captain's uniform and this witness, who was a casual witness, just doing 'his duty as an officer in reporting what he imagined to be seditious language, went to the proprietor of the hotel, and after the pleasant complimentary exordium about the padre being three parts drunk, went on to say. "He is no captain; he is no priest." How did he know that?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It was not true.

Captain BENN: How did he come to make such a statement?

Mr. J. JONES: Who was drunk?

Captain BENN: It goes very much deeper than that. It lends colour to a much different suggestion when we find the witness for the prosecution saying in advance, "This fellow is no captain." Did not he really mean that he thought it was somebody altogether different, disguised? That is the point and the statement in the Press that there had been
a misunderstanding certainly lends colour to the suggestion that a mistake had been made throughout, which the right hon. Gentleman will not acknowledge. What is the duty of this House to-night? I am very sorry indeed it my advocacy of this reverend gentleman has been unwise or if, perhaps, I was the wrong person to bring it forward. But what is our duty as Members of this House? Do we doubt the facts? It is impossible to doubt the facts. Do we not know he was acquitted by a court-martial? We do know. Do we question that indignity has been heaped upon him? It is impossible to do so, and I say our duty, especially at a time when Imperial ties are perhaps more delicate than in the memory of any man. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, there are elections going on in Australia. I ventured to make that remark in a question the other day, and the hon. Gentleman who stands for the Empire, for which, of course, we cannot pretend to stand, laughed. What is happening is this, that these people in Australia who are fighting for the Empire, and for the Imperial connection, are met with a case like this, and they are told, "Look how your men are treated when they go over and fight for the Empire." This case is of no assistance to any party with whom I may be supposed to sympathise. It is of assistance to all people who want to disrupt the Empire. I simply say this in conclusion. If the right hon. Gentleman can contradict the facts, I shall be glad, but if they are as I have stated, I do suggest to the House it is the duty of all, regardless of our party, to see that justice is done to a man who has been most gravely ill-used.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The speech of the hon. Member for Belfast reminded us of the great influence upon all our affairs which was always exercised by the skill and gifts of those who represented the Irish Parliamentary party in this House. I take it as an object-lesson of the power and influence which Ireland might exert in all our affairs, and, for her own sake, if she were fully represented in this House, if the hon. Member for Belfast, with one or two colleagues beside him, alone is able to make a small incident of this kind—an obscure incident of ordinary administration—into which no matters political enter at any point, a repeated feature at Question-time day after day, till, finally, there is a formal adjournment of this House and a very important discussion upon the subject. My hon.
Friend—if he will allow me to call him so—complained most of all that I expressed no regret. No, Sir, if I were to try and express regret for all the regrettable things that are happening in all parts of the world where the British have direct or indirect responsibility, where British troops are in occupation or partial occupation, I am sure I should have my work cut out. It is not possible for me to undertake the general task of expressing regret except in cases where I am satisfied that I, by some decision for which I am responsible, or some neglect, am directly involved in a wrongful or unfortunate occurrence, or where an officer serving in the Department for which I am concerned and responsible, can be shown, to my conviction, to have committed some wrongful act. I cannot feel that I am to be blamed because I have not found it my duty to make an expression of regret in regard to persons who, having been tried by courts-martial, are acquitted, for the inconvenience they may have suffered in the preliminary procedure which takes place, in the harsh conditions of military procedure, in regard to their characters and their fortunes, or at having to defend their liberty or their honour. These things are frequently happening. Many people have been subjected to them during the dark and evil years through which we have been passing, and are still passing.
While I do not in the least refuse a measure of compassion towards persons who, through an unfortunate series of events, find themselves in disagreeable situations and are injured and reflected upon, I cannot feel that I am blameworthy because I do not accept, as part of my duty as Secretary for War, to make formal and express regret to persons who are acquitted by court-martial. At the same time I have no hesitation in saying to the House that this is a very regrettable occurrence. Almost every circumstance tends to make it a very regrettable occurrence. First of all, there is the personality of Father O'Donnell. He is an Australian, and, therefore, dear to us on that account. He is an Australian soldier who has come across the sea and has fought. He is a priest, and, therefore, deserving of special respect. He was visiting Ireland—

Mr. DEVLIN: That was his crime!

Mr. CHURCHLL—with which he had a racial connection. It is regrettable on account of the other officer in the matter. Lieut. Chambers also has had a distinguished record. True he was only a second-lieutenant; but I observe he enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps in 1909. He rejoined on the outbreak of War, and proceeded to France on 21st August., 1914. He served for 3½ years in France and Belgium, during which time he was wounded on three separate occasions. He was first wounded in the leg, groin, wrist and hand at Combles, then in the leg at Largemarek, and, thirdly, in the leg at Money Arras. I thought I heard someone say, "What has that to do with it?" Are we only to take a one-sided view of the case? Is every word spoken by the accused in this matter to be accepted and every circumstance connected with the evidence of others in the trial to be thrown aside as if they were persons of no reputation? What has it to do with it? It has this to do with it: My hon. Friend opposite described this young officer as "a Zabern sergeant." I did not understand what that meant, and inquired. I found out it was a rhetorical expression. But I see nothing in the case to make me believe that Lieut. Chambers was not acting bonâ fide the report he made to his superiors. He may have been mistaken. It is quite possible that the fragments of conversation which he thought were grave and incriminating were capable of legitimate explanation—quite possible! That is what the Court found. I am not going to stand against the report of the Court. It is perfectly possible to say what I have suggested, because the Court, on full examination of the circumstances including all the hardships which had been entailed, and with the fine record of this Australian officer before them, found him not guilty on the charge and acquitted him. It. is going too far to turn and treat Lieut. Chambers, who has been wounded three times for his country, as if he were some paid spy and informer. But Lieut. Chambers was not alone. There was a Captain Clark in the room at the same time whom he did not know, and had never seen, and whose evidence was quite separate. Captain Clark, of the Royal Naval Reserve, is new employed under the Board of Trade. Both officers were —rightly or wrongly—greatly offended. They may have been entirely mistaken. They were greatly offended, even in-
furiated, by the language which they heard, or thought they heard, at the adjoining table. They remonstrated with the offender. The cause of complaint stopped. Lieut. Chambers then makes a report to the proper military authorities. I am not able to state exactly what the circumstances were, but I have no ground to think that his report was not bonâ fide. That report attributes no improper motives to Father O'Donnell. He made his report to the competent military authority, and, in consequence of that report, the machinery of military discipline was set in motion. The hon. Gentleman speaks as if I had been anxious to grasp this unfortunate Australian soldier priest and seeking to employ people to ruin him or get him into my grasp. I never heard of this matter at all until Monday last, when I found that my hon. Friend had been putting questions.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman like the Provost Marshal? Does he not read the evening and morning papers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I do, and I look out particularly for matters which are likely to concern me.

Mr. MacVEAGH: You said to-day that you accept full responsibility.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I do in a Ministerial sense, and in justifying that responsibility surely I am entitled to repudiate this odious and invidious kind of almost personal malevolence which the hon. Gentleman—although I am sure he did not believe it—indulged in. These two officers arrived at these conclusions, and as a result of the report of Lieut. Chambers the military machinery of discipline was put into operation and Father O'Donnell was arrested the next day on a charge of using seditious language against the King. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Government!"] Yes, and the Government. No one would ever object to any language being used against the Government in Ireland or anywhere else, but language used by an officer in uniform in an hotel against the King—I am, of course, assuming the allegation was correct because in this case the court-martial has acquitted him—language of that kind which was alleged, if true, would constitute a very serious charge against an officer, and, in consequence, this machinery, which is a very rough machinery, as those who have served in the Army or in the War know, was put
into operation. It is not unfair or by any means corrupt machinery, but it is a rough and ready machinery. This was set in motion and the gallant and reverend gentleman was arrested. I have examined the case of how he was treated immediately after his arrest, and when he was in the-custody of the British military authorities; and I cannot see from any of the evidence that there is any ground for complaint.
Of course, I do not say that he did not have a very disagreeable time. I regret that he should have been treated in this manner, but I do say that there was no ground for very many of the charges—finding fault with the officers or non-commissioned officers to whose charge he passed before he was handed over to the-Australian military authorities. He would have been handed over much earlier to the Australian military authorities but for the fact that an application was made in the. King's Bench Division, Dublin, for a writ of habeas corpus, and he was ordered not to be removed until the matter had been tried. That application was made by himself. Eventually, after eight or nine days' confinement, he was handed over.
An officer accused of using seditious language in a place like Ireland, where the military authorities have a very difficult task to perform, and where no one can doubt that a very dangerous state of opinion exists, is under a very serious charge. After eight or nine days he was removed. The Australian authorities took him over into their charge and brought him over to England. I should like to point out how very widely opinions may differ in regard to these matters of the administration of justice. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last complained bitterly that this man was shipped off to England, and he asked, "Why could he not be tried in Ireland and have the inquiry there where the witnesses were on the spot? Why ship hint off to England?" and he tried to make this out as another instance of my extraordinary malice. Another hon. Member said that if he had been tried in Ireland instead of England he would not have been acquitted, so I leave it to hon. Members opposite to settle this point between themselves.

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman is magnificent. I was not discussing the geographical position, but the character of the tribunal, and I was speaking of the Australian officers. I say that if
he had been tried by a court-martial set up in Ireland he would have been found guilty, and that is my point.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly made a magnificent display, but it is all air. The hon. Gentleman was referring to the tribunal administering so-called justice in Ireland, and I was referring to the Australian court-martial. Therefore, there is nothing in his point at all.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It seems to me clear that however you may argue about the tribunal there is a distinct difference between the hon. Member who moved and the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion as to which side of the Channel this man should be tried. It was a very serious charge, and I do not believe there can be any dispute about the procedure adopted. I have seen the statements made by the non-commissioned officers and the warrant officers concerned in providing the quarters for the confinement of Father O'Donnell after he was arrested. I do not want to read them, because they go into all sorts of squalid details, which, in view of all the circumstances, I do not think it is desirable to deal with. They are plain statements of officers who gave up their bunk. They declare it was clean, that there was plenty of bedding, and that all the requirements of an officer were provided. I am not prepared to say as between Father O'Donnell and these non-commissioned officers of the Wiltshire Regiment that either were telling an untruth. I am not going to say that just because Father O'Donnell takes this view that these men are necessarily lying, but there is a conflict of testimony, and it is not in my province to decide. I am not going to found a charge against these officers simply on the statement of Father O'Donnell.

Mr. DEVLIN: These officers did not give evidence at the court-martial. Father O'Donnell did. These are his sworn statements before the court-martial. Why did not the counsel employed by the Treasury cross-examine to prove that his statements were untrue?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Because Father O'Donnell was brought before the court-martial on a charge of using disloyal language, and the question of any ill-usage or what kind of usage he had received from the military authorities during the
time that he was in custody before trial was really not relevant except to this extent, that he had been in custody under these unpleasant and disagreeable circumstances, and the Court were entitled to take that into consideration in their general view of the affair. The hon. Member has said that this affair was an outrage —an intolerable outrage. I want to know, Where is the outrage? Does the outrage consist in the bonâ fide statement of Lieutenant Chambers? Does the outrage consist in the arrest that followed upon this bonâ fide statement reaching the higher authority? No doubt the higher authority was ignorant of Father O'Donnell's record except that he knew that he was an officer of such a rank and of such a name and that he was charged with having used seditious language. Where, in the face of those statements, is the outrage in the higher authority issuing orders for arrest? I dispute altogether—according to the information that I have received I am entitled to dispute altogether—that his treatment under arrest was different to that which would have been meted out to any other officer who came to our overcrowded and congested barracks and military centres. Was there any outrage in handing him over at the very earliest moment that could be arranged to his own Australian authorities, who deal with all these cases of Australian officers and men in this country, and with whom we do not interfere in any way except to give them any assistance that they require? If they want a place of confinement in which to put a man the General Officer in London provides it, and if they require counsel in a case of court-martial, the War Office assists them, but purely as a matter of form and upon their request and on their initiative and as a. matter of general routine. Where is the outrage there? Was there any outrage on the part of the Australian authorities in trying Father O'Donnell by court-martial? On the contrary, we are in agreement about that.

Mr. DEVLIN: That was the only decent thing in the whole transaction.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a very important thing—in fact it is nine-tenths of the whole transaction. A man is accused of having used improper or seditious language. He is put under arrest. At the earliest moment he is brought to trial and is acquitted. That is the whole transaction. There is no brutal
outrage against liberty and freedom that can possibly be made out of the arrest of a man for a bonâ fide prima faeie case, or out, of his trial according to recognised procedure, or out of his acquittal. An innocent man sentenced to a long period of imprisonment without a trial—that is an outrage. An innocent man convicted and proved guilty on false evidence—that is an outrage. An innocent man brought to trial and given an opportunity of vindicating his character and triumphantly acquitted—that is not an outrage. I do not see how in the circumstances, after this unfortunate episode had begun, after the officer had been put under arrest, after a writ of habeas corpus had been moved for, and after publicity had been given to the matter, any authority dealing with it could have refused to try him by court-martial. Certainly the War Office would not have done so. Although we do not admit the fight of an officer to trial by court-martial, we should have said in the circumstances that it would have been unfair to this officer to deny him a full opportunity of vindicating his character. There is no outrage there, nor can there be any outrage in his being acquitted. I am asked, am I prepared to express condemnation? I am not prepared to express condemnation at any stage in this affair, although I regret, very much the course which events took. I do not see in respect of what individual or at what stage in this affair I should intervene at this moment and express condemnation and mete out punishment. I am bound to say that the impression left on my mind was that the reverend gentleman acted very imprudently in all the circumstances, and I notice, although these grave charges were brought against him, and although a lot of very painful matter was brought up, the Court did not honourably acquit him, which, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) has pointed out, is the usual and recognised manner in which charges of this kind are dismissed. They acquitted him, and that acquittal stands, but I am not prepared to mete out condemnation to any persons concerned at any stage in this business.

Mr. DEVLIN: You attack him after he has been acquitted.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would like to say a word about the difficulty of the military
authorities in Ireland. They are very, great. Nothing is more unpleasant to our soldiers than the repeated conflicts with the civilian population, with individuals in the civilian population, into which they are led by the unhappy course of affairs in Ireland. It would be quite impossible to expect them to do their duty in all these difficult circumstances if the authorities, whenever anything occurred which gave rise to Parliamentary criticism or was the subject of comment in the newspapers, were ready to go and look for some victim on whom to pounce and of whom to make an example. As a result, you would not get that service from your military officers and authorities in all their grades which the state of affairs actually needs. The hon. Gentleman said that this was an out rage, and I observe that the Leader of the Opposition rose in his place to support the Adjournment. If you call these disagreeable experiences of the Rev. O'Donnell an outrage, what language are you going to apply to the murder of police-sergeants in Dublin? If you are going to rise in your place to support adjournments on a matter of this kind, which I regret, and which I do not in the least deny is an unfortunate episode, but which I say is trivial and petty in almost every respect, if you are going to try to make out of an ordinary episode of administration, accidental and unfortunate, in its course as it undoubtedly was, a cause of quarrel between Great Britain and Australia, and rupture the slender Imperial tie, what words have you to say of the conspiracy of murder against the police? I am not making a reproach of it. I am only warning the hon. Gentleman not to exhaust his vocabulary too soon.

Mr. MacVEAGH: There was a time when the Secretary of State for War prepared his speeches, and when he came down here and entranced the House with epigrams which savoured very much of midnight oil. I think it is to be regretted that on the present occasion he has departed from that practice, and has appeared to regard this House as ready to accept anything he chooses to give it. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with a characteristic peroration, and I am at a loss to understand why he associated this case with a number of murders in Ireland, and why he triumphantly asked the Members of the front Opposition bench what they had to say about those murders? What in God's
name has that to do with this case? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Members on the Front Opposition Bench are engaged in a conspiracy of murder? Does he suggest that I and my colleagues are engaged in such a conspiracy? If not, what was the object of bringing in this matter? It was one of those little tricks of oratory with which the right hon. Gentleman has made us quite familiar, but which are quite as unjustified as the arithmetical calculation he occasionally indulges in on financial topics. I regret the speech of the right hon. Gentleman for many reasons, because it included some subjects which call for very serious consideration. I would ask the House to have regard in the first instance to the gross contempt which in this case of Father O'Donnell has been shown by the Government, and especially by the Secretary for War, for Colonial opinion. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, has gone the best possible way to break up the Empire. I heard an hon. Member laugh. This is not a laughing matter, and if the hon. Member cannot get up and make a coherent speech, which he has never yet been able to do, at any rate he might refrain from laughing.
What happened with regard to the Dominions? The Prime Minister of the Australian Commonwealth sent several cables to the Government here with regard to Father O'Donnell. How were those cablegrams treated? The Leader of the House got up at that table the other day and told the House of Commons that he did not know anything about any cablegrams from Mr. Hughes. Probably they were received, but he did not know. Today the Secretary for War told us he had never seen the telegrams, and though he believed they were received he had never read them. That is the respect which this Government is showing for the Dominions, and I ask any thoughtful English or Scottish Member what effect he thinks that is going to have on the Prime Ministers and subjects in the British Dominions all over the world. But that is not all. The Governor of Tasmania sent a telegram to Father O'Donnell with regard to the prosecution. What happened to that? It was held up by the Government. It was not delivered to Father O'Donnell until the Tasmanian Agent called at the Colonial Office and said he had received a message from the Tasmanian Government stating that the Governor's message had not been delivered. Then it was produced and de-
livered after three weeks suppression at the Colonial Office. What does the House think of that? This does not affect me, it does not affect Father O'Donnell in the slightest, but it does concern patriotic Englishmen and Scotsmen, and it is they who have to judge the seriousness of these things in our relations with the Dominions.
The Secretary for War offered only a half-hearted expression of regret for the manner in which Father O'Donnell was treated. Indeed, I think he put it in a negative form, "I do not say," said he, "that it was not regrettable," Surely that is the most qualified condemnation that was ever pronounced upon an outrage of this kind. I may go further. He pooh-poohed the incident as one of no consequence whatever, and he suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin) and those who are associated with him, have been guilty of a sort of impudence in raising this question at all on a, Motion for Adjournment. He said, and this is a fact that I would emphasise, that he had consulted the Attorney-General for Ireland, a very worthy politician, and that he never made any statement with reference to condemning the illegality. If there is one thing which the Attorney-General and his friends in Dublin castle like to talk about it is that politicians do not condemn with sufficient vehemence the murders that have taken place in that country. But what did the Secretary for War tell us to-day? His pronouncement will be read from every Sinn Fein platform in Ireland and at every meeting. He said, "I refuse to undertake to generally condemn illegalities for which I am not directly responsible." That is exactly the view held by leaders of opinion in Ireland today, and they may now claim the Secretary for War as on their side.
The right hon. Gentleman stated that Chambers's statements to the court-martial were bonâ fide. But they were proved at the court-martial not only not to be bonâ fide, but to be untruthful. I was sitting in the Court when the judge-advocate, addressing the court-martial at the close of the proceedings, called the attention of the officers who constituted the Court to the very remarkable fact that Chambers had never produced his notebook, and to the still more remarkable fact that although he alleged he took notes of the conversation under the table in the dining room, a gentleman who was
sitting at the same table did not see him taking the notes, and nobody else in the dining room either saw him doing so. The judge-advocate told the court-martial they must have regard to these facts when deciding on the credibility of the evidence advanced by Chambers. That is not the only thing. We heard a long record tonight of Chamber's services. But there was one incident as to which the Secretary for War said nothing. He did not tell us about the occasion when Chambers was invited to retire from the officers' mess at Harwich. Perhaps he will make some inquiries, so that on the next occasion his record may be more up to date.
The right hon. Gentleman also towards the close of his speech made what I think was a very unworthy observation; one which I believe he will regret having made. I think sufficiently highly of him to believe he will be ashamed of it. He made the point that the court-martial did not honourably acquit Father O'Donnell, but simply acquitted him. I will do the right hon. Gentleman the justice of assuming that he does not know how that was brought about. I will tell him. I heard the judge-advocate say to the court-martial when they were retiring, and because he knew their desire was to return a verdict of honourable acquittal—I heard him say, "You can return either a verdict of acquittal or a verdict of honourable acquittal, but with regard to honourable acquittal you are not entitled to find such a verdict unless there has been a charge reflecting on Father O'Donnell's personal honour." There was no such charge in this case. Speaking as a lawyer representing the War O[...]ce, as a man with authority, he told them in the most distinct fashion that they were not entitled, as a matter of law, to return a verdict of honourable acquittal. He quoted the Duke of Wellington, who, in I forget what year, said, "You should never return a verdict of honourable acquittal unless in circumstances which provide reason for general rejoicing by the whole Army."

Sir K. FRASER: That is wrong.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Everything is wrong. Everything the right hon. Gentleman said is wrong. That does not surprise me in the slightest. I am telling the House now what the judge-advocate said, and I challenge anyone to contradict it. He told the Court that they had no power to re-
turn a verdict of honourable acquittal. The right hon. Gentleman offers no apology, except the very half-hearted one to which I have referred. He seems to think that this is a matter of no importance whatever, an everyday occurrence. I doubt very much whether any Member in this House—I do not care who he is, or how partisan he may be, or how anxious he may be to vote with the Secretary of State for War—I do not think there is a Member in this House who believes that this is an everyday occurrence in the British Army. Where the right hon. Gentleman is right is in this, that it is an everyday occurrence in Ireland. One of the most remarkable things about the whole situation is this, that the liberty of the whole Irish people is to-day in the hands of these military martinets who have treated Father O'Donnell in this way, and there is not an Irishman living at home to-day who is not liable to be treated in the same way. The right hon. Gentleman does not care, but I can promise him this, that the people of Australia care, and, though hon. Members laughed when it was mentioned that a general election is now taking place in Australia, they will laugh in a different way when they learn the result of that election. When they learn, as they will learn, the effect which the prosecution of Father O'Donnell has had upon the fate of Mr. Hughes in Australia, they will begin to appreciate the seriousness of this question.
There were various illegalities in this case, with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal. In the first place, no charge was preferred against Father O'Donnell when he was arrested, nor was any charge communicated to him until he was brought before the Australian authorities. He got this slip of paper telling him he was charged with conduct prejudicial to military discipline. That is not a charge. How can any man prepare a defence to that charge? It is not a charge. It is merely a general statement, and the giving of a document of a kind so vague as that is not providing the accused with any charge which he is in a position to rebut.

Sir K. FRASER: Was he not given the particulars?

Mr. MacVEAGH: He was not, until he was brought before the Australian officer. As long as he was under the control of the Secretary of State he was never told
what the charge was. Moreover, by the Army Regulations, this charge should have been reported to Father O'Donnell's commanding officer before any action was taken. Was that Army Regulation carried out? Was Father O'Donnell's commanding officer communicated with before he was placed in custody? Of course not. The Secretary of State tells us that the first he knew of this case was three or four days ago. The first thing the Australian commanding officer knew of it was when he saw it in the newspaper. Yet, according to Army Regulations he should have been told before Father O'Donnell was taken into custody. The right hon. Gentleman told us to-clay, in answer to a question, and he repeated it to-night, because he is very anxious that it should be conveyed to Australia, that the Australian Army officer here did nothing but what was absolutely correct. Of course. No one ever suggested anything else. That has been our case all through. Our complaint is not against the Australian officer, who acted as a gentleman, and gave. Father O'Donnell a court-martial when he demanded it. Our complaint is against the officers who are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for War. I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had gone a little more fully into the particulars as to how Father O'Donnell came to be placed under arrest. He has told us he was arrested on the orders of the Commander of the Forces in Ireland. Was Lord French consulted before that was done? We do not exactly know what Lord French's position is. He is at the head of the civil administration in Ireland, or such civil administration as is left, and he is also at the head of the military. Was he consulted by the military before or after Father O'Donnell's arrest, and, if so, what did he say and what action did he take? Is he entirely free from responsibility?

Sir K. FRASER: Sir Frederick Shaw.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I do not know how the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows. I do not know who was responsible for the arrest.

Sir K. FRASER: The Commander-in-Chief.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Lord French knew all about the case, and never interfered directly or indirectly. I would ask the
House to note what a commentary this O'Donnell case is on the Government's much vaunted intention of producing a settlement of the Irish question. One thing absolutely certain in the troubled sea of Irish politics is that so long as the present Lord Lieutenant and the present Chief Secretary and the present military administration remain in Ireland you are face to race with an insuperable obstacle to the settlement of the Irish question. As long as you have a state of affairs under which—

Mr. SPEAKER: We are not dealing with those matters to-day.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I am only making a passing reference. I have no intention of debating the point. The O'Donnell case shows that as long as you have the present military system at work you will not be able to effect a settlement of the Irish question.
Another point on which I think the right hon. Gentleman might have been a little more frank was with regard to the very base, unworthy and utterly false suggestions which was made by military officers all over Ireland, which was made by this man Chambers at the beginning of the case, but afterwards abandoned by him when he came face to face with the court-martial, that Father O'Donnell was under the influence of drink. The right hon. Gentleman cannot dismiss it so airily as he sought to do to-night. That statement was made by members of his own Government in this House, and it was circulated all over the House that Father O'Donnell was arrested because, in a state of intoxication, he had indulged in disloyal expressions. It is greatly to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not frankly, straighforwardly, and freely offer an expression of regret to Father O'Donnell for the manner in which he has been treated. Apart from political feelings altogether, I think, all in this House will regard the treatment of Father O'Donnell as having been enormously aggravated by the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has dealtwith the case to-night. He will hear of this case again and again. He will hear of his defence to-night. The story will ring in America. It is ringing at this moment all through Amerca and all through Australia. For many a year to come the story will be told in Ireland as well.

Brigadier-General CROFT: I am sure: that I am voicing the opinion of every
hon. Member when I say that this case has caused every Member extreme regret. Everyone, especially those who have had the privilege of fighting for any considerable time with the Australian Forces, and who know what we owe to Australia, must feel that this is a most deplorable thing to have occurred. But, having said that, I frankly do not believe that there is any single resident of Australia, at any rate those who have been over here and who know the British people, who would imagine for one instant that the question of Australia came into this matter at all. When we have said that, we can properly discuss what really the right hon. Gentleman could do in the circumstances. Everyone knows that there have been courts-martial, unfortunately a very large number. There was bound to be when we had a great Army. There may have been thousands of acquittals, certainly hundreds, from courts-martial. Can it be maintained that the right hon. Gentleman should write to the newspapers or make a statement in Parliament expressing his regret because an Australian padre has been acquitted, when to thy certain knowledge English padres have been acquitted from courts-martial, and no such demand has come from any part of this House? I would ask the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin) to treat this question in its proper perspective, and not to drag in Australia again and again, and to try to persuade this House that this question is going to have any real effect upon the Australian elections. It was interesting for the first time to hear the hon. Member (Mr. MacVeagh) express solicitude that Mr. Hughes should be returned as Prime Minister for Australia. I am glad to find that he has come round to my view on that question.

Mr. MacVEAGH: If the War Office could have court-martialled you at the General Election they would have done it.

General CROFT: Perhaps that is perfectly true. The hon. Member perhaps knows what the War Office thinks of me. The fact remains, that we are going to make a grave blunder if we treat this question in the manner in which the Mover and the Seconder of the Resolution treated it. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke for the Liberal party (Captain Wedgwood Benn) again and again referred to the minions or myrmidons of the right hon. Gentleman, and said that they were doing this, that, or the other, as if they were
doing this under the direction of the Secretary for War. The hon. and gallant Gentleman at one time wore with great distinction the uniform of His Majesty in the Forces of the Crown, and because he was an officer it would have been a gross insult for us here to have described him as a million or a myrmidon if he did what he conceived to be his duty and if he performed the very unpleasant duty of reporting against someone who was also wearing the uniform of the British Empire. It is almost impossible to conceive that this officer, whom we are all glad to see has been acquitted, was not doing something on the occasion in question which was hardly worthy of the uniform of the British Army, or you would not have found two officers, who did not know each other, both getting up and protesting against that officer's behaviour in public.

Mr. MacVEAG1–1: They only protested against the loud voice.

General CROFT: Against the way he was conducting himself. I am not referring to the other suggestions, but there must have been some strong cause to make two of them in a public place approach a total stranger and request him to modify his attitude. I hope that the matter will not be proceeded with, because, if it is, it is evident that it can be wily for one reason, and that is to stir up political troubles and make difficulties where no difficulties ought to exist, and magnify this question in Australia, when every Australian ought to know that in thousands of cases innocent men have been court-martialled and acquitted, and that it is impossible to make a special exception in the case of any one man however gallant he may be or what part of the Empire he may come from.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I did not intend to take part in this Debate, as I have no knowledge of the personalities or the facts except what I have gathered from the newspapers, but I do not think that the speech of the Secretary for War can remain without a reply from these benches. The word Zabern has been used frequently in the Debate. Zabern was one of the signs of that position which created the complications in Europe from which we have just escaped. Zabern gave an object-lesson to the outside world as to what militarism in Prussia meant. But there was an incident in connection with Zabern which was quite as remarkable as the con-
duct of the German militarists in the War. That was the letter, practically of approval, which the Crown Prince, as he then was, sent to the officer who was convicted of this outrage upon the civil liberties of the people. The Crown Prince wrote a letter to the officer who was the principal in this Zabern outrage. He was also present at a debate in the Reichstag, if I remember aright, in which he clamourously applauded the defence of the Zabern officers. The speech of the Secretary for War to-night, in my opinion, is exactly on a par with the letter of the ex-Grown Prince to the officers connected with Zabern. With the indulgence of the House I will prove that statement. I never heard an unwiser speech, and, what is more important, I never heard a more ungenerous speech in my life than that of the right hon. Gentleman. He wound up by dragging in wantonly the horrible series of crimes which have taken place in Ireland. What was the meaning of dragging them in?

Mr. STANTON: It is true.

Mr. O'CONNOR: What is true?

Mr. STANTON: The crime in Ireland.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Does the hon. Gentleman think that I am foolish enough or blind enough or deaf enough not to know that there has been deplorable crime in Ireland?

Mr. STANTON: You would like us to forget it—your side.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My reason for referring to that was to show the difficulties in which the military authorities are placed in Ireland, the dangerous situation which exists, and consequently the sharp and rough measures which are taken with military officers who are believed to have used seditious language.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but the Howe heard his words. They were accompanied by an allusion and almost a challenge to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, who were twitted with not calling attention to these crimes while exhausting their vocabulary on this particular incident. What was the meaning of that allusion? I do not know what was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, but that allusion, brought in in connection with the trial of Captain O'Donnell, was
designed to bring prejudice into this discussion, and to suggest that because we take up this case we are to be held in some way responsible for the odious series of crimes in Ireland. I say that was a most ungenerous and unfair thing, unfair to us and unfair to Father O'Donnell. The right hon. Gentleman asked what outrage there has been to apologise for. I will tell the House what the outrage was. The outrage was his speech. Captain O'Donnell has been acquitted; the charge against him has been proved to be untrue. I am not going to make an attack on this gentleman, Lieutenant Chambers, who originated the case. The right hon. Gentleman has passed a eulogy upon the services of this gallant officer, as to which I am not going to make any denial or diminution.
I must say that it appears to me very poor business for gallant officers to go around the dining-rooms of hotels eavesdropping and formulating grave charges of disloyalty on what must necessarily be imperfect understanding of what was said. If all of us had a sentence or two taken from the context of our table-talk, there is none of us could live and carry any reputation for the rest of our days. Therefore, I interpret the conduct of Lieutenant Chambers in this matter from an entirely different point of view from that of the right hon. Gentleman. My interpretation is that it is a symptom of the thoroughly morbid state of mind into which a number of military gentlemen in Ireland have got, and their desire to look around and search and find treason and sedition in every single conversation they may happen to hear. It has been stated that Captain O'Donnell was guilty of bad manners because he was talking loudly. As a matter of fact he was speaking loudly because he was talking to a deaf man. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the indiscretions of Captain O'Donnell. What were the indiscretions? Is it contended that a man is to be subject to the possibilities of imprisonment and trial by court-martial because he talks loudly in the dining-room of an hotel in Ireland? You could not have a more eloquent symptom and demonstration than this incident of the horrible state of mind which has been produced among the military authorities in Ireland.
Why do I call the right hon. Gentleman's speech an outrage First, for the reason I have already given, that I think the winding-up of his speech was a most
unfair introduction of extraneous and prejudiced matter. But I have another reason. I have listened to all the right hon. Gentleman's answers about this case, except on one day when I did not happen to be present. I heard every word of his speech to-night, and I will tell you the opinion I would form if I were an outsider and read his speech, of the right hon. Gentleman's mental attitude towards the whole thing—"not guilty; do not do it again." That is the best he can say for Father O'Donnell. He has not a word of real, sincere and whole-hearted regret for all the incidents of this transaction. I do not want to use strong language and I hate using any language which would hurt any lady's feelings, but I must say the right hon. Gentleman descended to what I thought was one of the most ungenerous devices I ever heard in this House when he laid stress on the fact that though Father O'Donnell was acquitted he was not "honourably acquitted." My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. MacVeagh), who is a member of the Bar, gave an explanation as to the use of the word "honourably." That was a technical, legal explanation of which I am not in a position to judge, but is not the interpretation you must take for such language by the right hon. Gentleman that, though this man was acquitted, he was not honourably acquitted, and that, after all, he does not owe a whole-hearted apology to Father O'Donnell. I put it to the House, ought he to have got a sincere and whole-hearted apology or not? My hon. and gallant Friend (Brigadier-General Croft) said that there had been many courts-martial, and asked were they to review every single court-martial in the High Court of Parliament and call on Ministers to make an apology? Nobody would lay down a proposition so absurd, but this case is unique in the fact that here is a man who fills the double capacity of a fighting soldier and a chaplain, and who came across the seas in order to fight for the cause of liberty and who defended against people of his own race Mr. Hughes' appeal for Conscription. I reiterate the statement made by the hon. Members who spoke that he was subjected to unusually rigorous, offensive, and degrading treatment. A man with a record like that and a member of a force to which we owe so much as the Australian force and a man whose case has now become known to the world is not to have a full and ample reparation at least in words, from the right hon. Gentleman
who is the guardian of the Army. My hon. and gallant Friend (Brigadier-General Croft) says do not talk so much about the Australian Force, but I do not think we can talk too much about what we owe to Australia and to the Australian Army, and, therefore, we are under a particular obligation to mark our reprobation of the unjust and degrading treatment to a gallant member of that force—that is my point.
The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if nothing had happened to this gentleman out of the ordinary. I am not a master of any law, still less of military law, but the fact remains that he was kept in close confinement. As to his prison treatment, we have a conflict of evidence, and either one side or the other side is lying. A man knows whether a bed is comfortable or unhealthy. Father O'Donnell has given testimony, which has not been challenged in Court, that he was put into a filthy cell with a filthy bed. Now I ask my hon. and gallant Friend, if that statement be true, do we not owe an apology to the force and to the country from which that man came? [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen laugh at that observation. I will take another point. Is it or is it not true that the man was for several days without the opportunity of seeing his counsel and his other legal assistance? Was not that an outrage, and ought not that to be apologised for? As to the charges about the reverend gentleman's habits, all I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is this, that these charges were first stated, according to the evidence of Lieutenant Chambers, in the hotel, and that these charges have been circulated wide-cast. I have heard the charge made on these benches that this was only a drunken Irish priest, and that it was absurd for us to take up the time of Parliament in discussing the case. Are the characters of gallant soldiers to be whispered away by this sordid campaign of calumny, and especially the character of a man who occupies the sacred position of a chaplain in the Army? The right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say, does not come well out of this transaction. So far as he can do it, he has defended the conduct of the officers engaged in the matter, and so far as he could avoid it he has refused to say one word of sincere apology to this reverend and gallant officer. There is one little difference between the Zabern incident and this. It is quite true that the right hon.
Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, with a certain sneaking tenderness for militarism which I regret to say one can trace in most of his recent proposals and speeches, which perhaps may be intelligible in a man who has served some years of his life in the Army, has imitated the ex-Crown Prince of Prussia in practically giving, so far as he could, his apology and his defence for the soldiers who are guilty of this outrage, but in one way the Zabern incident differs from this incident. When the Zabern incident was brought before even the servile and impotent Reichstag under the Kaiser, the Reichstag for once rose to the courage of its opinions and, by practically a unanimous vote, denounced and reprobated the conduct of the Zabern officers; but here, in this British Parliament, the Mother of Parliaments, and supposed to be the guardian of liberty, this outrage can take place on a gallant officer and you cannot get the House of Commons or a Minister to say a word in honest regret.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I entirely agree with everything the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said. I can quite understand his feelings on this matter, but the Secretary of State for War has served as a soldier in the Regular Army. I served in the Regular Navy, and we both understand that it is quite necessary for the head of a fighting Service to be ready to defend with the greatest energy the doings of his subordinates in that Service. Both the Secretary of State for War and myself have been brought up from our youth to defend our subordinates to the utmost. Any accusations against them we have both been bound to refute with the greatest energy, and therefore I find myself, in this matter at any rate, in much sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. I hope always the Secretary for War will go out of his way to defend with all the energy he can the doings of his subordinates. I hope the heads of the Air Service and the Admiralty will always do the same. But, having said that, I think the right hon. Gentleman might have been a little stronger in his regret for the whole set of circumstances which arose, and regretted that the matter had not come before a senior officer in Dublin who had sufficient good sense to know it would be more tactful, more diplomatic, more statesmanlike, to have quashed at
once the proceedings and allowed the matter to drop. We must remember that this was a case of an officer of Irish descent, with an Irish name, and a Catholic. Would this have happened in the case of an Englishman, an officer in one of the smart regiments in this country? Would Lieutenant Chambers in that case have gone out of his way, as I think he really did? Would an officer, for example, in a Cavalry regiment—possibly the right hon. Gentleman's own regiment—have been haled up in this way? The right hon. Gentleman knows that at this moment all Irishmen, if only by descent, are hypersensitive. [Interruption.] Under the circumstances, I think the condemnation might have been more severe. Irishmen at this moment, as I say, are hypersensitive. They know that many of their race have served in the War, and they feel it to be unfair that all of their countrymen should be tarred with the same brush because of a few unfortunate and regrettable outrages in country districts in Ireland.

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I regret if I strayed from the subject. I will at once return to the subject. [HON. MEMBERS "Sit down!"] May I say that the right hon. Gentleman himself dragged in these murders, which I do not think were mentioned in any speeches which preceded his speech. The case of Australia has been mentioned, and I am not going to mention it again. One might remember another great English-speaking nation—the United States of America.. At the present moment there is an intense propaganda going on there against the good name of England. The proceedings in this Chamber are not going to do much to allay that. Hon. Members who take upon themselves to. interrupt, and twit, and attempt to shout down—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is straying from the subject.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I apologise again, Sir. There is this intensive propaganda going forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why don't you sit down?"] It spoils the relationship between ourselves and another great English-speaking nation. Under these circumstances I think it is even more regrettable, and only lends weight to what I say, that the right hon. Gentleman, while having
to defend, as it was his duty to do, his own subordinates in every way he could—I perfectly agree with him—sympathise with him—did not at the same time regret the occurrence—as we all on these benches do—and find himself ready to offer a more sincere—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide"]regret, but must needs draw a distinction in the matter of an honourable acquittal in this most unfortunate and regrettable case.

Mr. J. JONES: I would not have intervened in this Debate, because I think the matter has already been so well dealt with from all points of view that any remarks of mine might appear superfluous—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down!"]

Mr. STANTON: On a point of Order. Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether, when an hon. Member rises and declares that he has nothing really to say, he is entitled to take up the time of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is the usual form with which every Member begins.

Mr. JONES: However that may be—

Mr. STANTON: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks made by the other side — an hon. Member calling me names. I will hit back if you do not protect me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]

Mr. JONES: If I said so much, and knew so little, as the hon. Gentleman who has interrupted me, I should never intervene in debate. I am speaking from a different point of view to previous speakers. I happen to be an Irishman representing an English constituency—

Mr. STANTON: With a Welsh name!

Mr. JON ES: But I am not a Welshman.

Mr. STANTON: I know you are not!
It being Eleven of the clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Re-committed) BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

Postponed Proceeding resumed.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 26.—(Provision for Case of Failure to Pass Legislation.)

(1) Where either chamber of the Indian legislature refuses leave to introduce, or fails to pass
758
in a form recommended by the Governor-General, any Bill, the Governor-General may certify that the passage of the Bill is essential for the safety, tranquillity, or interests of British India or any part thereof, and thereupon—

(a) If the Bill has already been passed by the other chamber, the Bill shall, on signature by the Governor-General, notwithstanding that it has not been consented to by both chambers, forthwith become an Act of the Indian Legislature in the form of the Bill as originally introduced or proposed to be introduced in the Indian legislature, or (as the case may be) in the form recommended by the Governor-General; and
(b) If the Bill has not already been so passed, the Bill shall be laid before the other chamber, and, if consented to by that chamber in the form recommended by the Governor-General, shall become an Act as aforesaid on the signification of the Governor-General's assent, or if not so consented to, shall, on signature by the Governor-General, become an Act as aforesaid.

(2) Every such Act shall be expressed to be made by the Governor-General, and shall, as soon as practicable after being made, be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall not have effect until it has received His Majesty's assent, and shall not be presented for His Majesty's assent until copies thereof have been laid before each House of Parliament for not less than eight days on which that House has sat; and upon the signification of such assent by His Majesty in Council, and the notification thereof by the Governor-General, the Act shall have the same force and effect as an Act passed by the Indian legislature and duly assented to:

Provided that where in the opinion of the Governor-General a state of emergency exists which justifies such action, the Governor-General may direct that any such Act shall come into operation forthwith, and thereupon the Act shall have such force and effect as aforesaid, subject, however, to disallowance by His Majesty in, Council.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "safety, traquility, or interests," and to insert instead thereof the words, "maintenance or discipline of any part of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces, or for the safety or tranquillity."
The object of the Clause is to give the Governor-General power to pass any Bill over the heads of the Indian Legislature, and that power professes to be qualified to the extent that he can only do this when he certifies that the passage of the Bill is essential for the "safety, tranquility or interests of British India, etc." The words are so general in their scope that they amount to no qualification at all. There is hardly any conceivable measure which the Governor-General if he wished could not pass over the heads of the Legislature under this provision. Therefore the Legislature has no effective power
over the matters submitted to it. The real power rests with the Governor-General, and it is very dangerous to have a state of things like that. If this body of representative Indians approach these questions with the knowledge that the responsibility is not theirs, and with a feeling that if they reject a Bill it can still be passed over their heads, the result will be that the debates will be conducted as a means of agitation and propaganda and not as a means of practical legislation. If you are to have the debates of the proceedings conducted in a practical way you can only secure that by giving the Legislature some modicum of real responsibility for the work they are doing. Why are they not to be allowed some effective responsibility for measures which really concern themselves alone and which do not affect any problem of defence or international or Imperial relations or that really affects the safety or tranquility of India as a whole. I therefore suggest that the power of the Governor-General to pass legislation over the heads of the Legislative Assembly should he limited to those matters which are really essential from the military point of view, should, in the words of my Amendment, be limited to measures which are essential for "the maintenance and discipline of any part of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces, or for the safety and tranquility of British India or any part thereof."

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend has raised a point of supreme importance. It would be very strange if now we adopted an Amendment on this Clause after not adopting a similar Amendment on the previous Clause. I cannot for the life of me see why you should make a difference between the maintenance or discipline of any part of His Majesty's Forces and other interests. The only reason for specifically excluding His Majesty's Forces would be that the Viceroy and his Government are responsible to the Secretary of State and to this House for the internal arrangements of those forces, but not for internal arrangements generally. Under the scheme of the Bill we make the Government responsible to Parliament still for the whole of the government of India. The whole theory of the Bill is that we do not establish a diarchy in the Government of India. I know that
some of my hon. Friends think that we do, but if you have an Executive responsible to Parliament not only for the maintenance of discipline in any of His Majesty's Forces, but also for the interests of India you must give them power to discharge that responsibility and to pass the legislation which they regard as essential. It is not any measure which affects the interests; it is a measure which the Viceroy can say is essential. He does not now, as he used to do, pass that legislation by means of what used to be called the "official block;" he passes it frankly as an executive order of his Government. It does not then become law until it has been before this House and the other House where any Member will have an opportunity of discharging his true functions as the trustee of the Indian electorate. He will have in order to deal with that subject the opportunity of a Repot upon the measure by a Standing Committee appointed by this House itself. Therefore, I do think that the use of the power is guaranteed both by the form and by the appeal to Parliament itself. With these guarantees I do submit, if the Viceroy and his Government, who are responsible to this House for the good government of the Empire of India, feel that legislation is necessary, they ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of getting it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I quite agree that the Viceroy ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of passing legislation which he thinks is essential to the safety of India or of the British Empire. But what is the meaning of the word "interest." It is a perfectly vague term. Every piece of legislation is held to be essential in the interests of this country. But this Clause gives the Viceroy carte blanche to introduce any legislation. I think that is too wide a power. If the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted it will provide a clear definition of the sort of measure the Viceroy can introduce. Would he be able to introduce a Bill like the Ballot Act which was passed through this House? Is it required to give the Governor-General power to introduce Bills of even a more general character or less urgent in their nature? Even if this Amendment is not carried, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inform the Viceroy, or anyone who is to have power to initiate such legislation, that by the word
"interests" what is meant is exactly that which the hon. Member has put down in his Amendment.

Mr. INSKIP: Is not too much stress being laid on the wrong word? Should it not be on the word "essential" rather than "interests." And does not the word "essential" ensure all the protection which is necessary?
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 (Supplemental Provisions as to Powers of Indian Legislature) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 28.—(Composition of Governor General's Executive Council.)

(1) The provision in Section thirty-six of the principal Act, imposing a limit on the number of members of the Governor-General's Executive Council, shall cease to have effect.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Member for Melton propose to move to leave out Sub-section (1)? Does he lay any stress on it?

Colonel YATE: I do not propose to move it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
but of this total number of such Members at least half shall be Indians chosen from among the elected members of the Legislative Assembly.
The Executive Council at the present time contains three Indian members, and this Amendment proposes to raise the number to four. But the more important part of my proposal is that these members shall he chosen from among the elected members of the Legislative Chamber. That of course is a considerable change, as at the present time they are chosen by the Viceroy, and are generally held to represent the best brains in India. We are seeking to educate Indian legislators for the future, and it is surely desirable, therefore, that they should be chosen from among the members of the Legislative Assembly.
The choice will be a wide one. The Governor-General will be able to select his Executive Committee from among all members of the Legislative Assembly. They will have no responsibility to the Legislative Assembly. It will be for a term of years, and in spite of the fact that
they will have no responsibility yet you will get that educational advantage that is so desirable for the success of this scheme. At the end of ten years, the Indian members of the Executive will be Ministers, responsible to the Legislative Assembly. It will be a great thing if, when that state comes about, the same people can be continued in office—men again coming from the Legislative Assembly. Although this Amendment may be impracticable at the present moment, it is extremely desirable that before the period of revision comes the Viceroy should take steps to select his three or four members of the executive council from among those who are doing the work of legislation and not broadcast from among all the population of India. A man who has to face his electors at the poll has a certain commencement of that responsibility which devolves upon a Minister, who represents not only his electors but the majority party in the House of Commons. In that direction a good step might be taken along the road we all desire to travel.

Mr. MONTAGU: This is a very far-reaching proposal. It means that if the number of members of the Governor-General's executive council is an odd number, the hon. and gallant Member desires that there shall be more than half of them Indian members.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: One-half.

Mr. MONTAGU: You cannot have a half if the number is odd. The next effect would be that for the first time in this Statute you introduce a statutory racial qualification at a time when, according to a new Clause which has been put down by one of the hon. and gallant Member's friends, he wants to sweep away all existing racial qualifications. It would be most unfortunate to put in a statutory racial qualification. It would be an infringement of Section 96 of the original Act, which says:
No native of British India, nor any subject of Ms Majesty resident therein, shall, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any office under the Crown in India.
That Section is inconsistent with my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. My third objection is this: My hon. and gallant Friend has made many powerful speeches in the course of the last two days. Perhaps the most powerful speech of all, if I may say so—it may be because I was in cordial agreement with it—was the
speech in which, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Yate), he pulverised the, alternative scheme of local government which is associated with the majority of heads of local Governments. If my hon. and gallant Friend considers this Amendment with the Amendment he urged the Committee to reject, he will find he is going perilously near to asking us to accept for the central Government the very constitution he felt it necessary to ask us to reject for the local Governments. There would be the same principle of real diarchy linked in a false union. What we all desire is this: That we should appoint to the Viceroy's Executive Council Indian representatives, and we hope we shall find these Indians more and more in the Legislative Assembly taking part in political life. But that is a very different thing from accepting this Amendment.

Colonel YATE: I entirely disagree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the choice of these members of the Executive Council shall be limited to members of the Legislative Council. It would be the greatest mistake to limit the choice of the Viceroy to any Council whatsoever. He should have the widest choice of the best men he can find. As regards what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) said about racial distinctions, I would refer him to the Report of the Joint Committee on the proposition that three members of the Council should be Indians. There is the concrete proposal that we have before us. I have put down an Amendment to provide that at least one-half of the Council should be European British subjects, and, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I think, as it is agreed on all hands that the central Government must remain powerful and strong, and the Viceroy must have full power, my Amendment ought to be accepted, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will consider that question. It seems to me essential that if we are to have seven members, four, as proposed in the Report of the Joint Committeé, should be European British subjects. We cannot afford at present to weaken the strength of the Viceroy's Executive Council. I perfectly welcome the proposal in the Report of the Joint Committee that, instead of the two Indian members now on the Council there should be three, provided it is put in that the remaining four are European British subjects.

Sir J. D. REES: I cannot help suggesting what a tribute to the moderation of the Bill and the Report is contained in these two Amendments placed one after the other. It is an extraordinarily eloquent tribute to the skill, the moderation, justice, and the success with which the Committee has steered a course between two opposing Camps. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) knows that under his Amendment it would be quite possible for a pure-born European, born and bred in India, and of the most unadulterated European parentage, to be eligible for election to one of these Legislative Assemblies.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 (Appointment of Council Secretaries) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 30.—(Payment of Salary of Secretary of State, etc., out of moneys provided by Parliament.)

The salary of the Secretary of State, the salaries of his Under-Secretaries, and any other expenses of his Department may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, instead of being paid out of the revenues of India, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and the salary of the Secretary of State shall be so paid.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have an Amendment on this Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move it if I do not select it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Clause pubs the salary of the Secretary of State upon the estimates of this country, and that for the first time brings India under the control of this Parliament. We can now direct Indian politics by moving a reduction of the Secretary of State's salary, just as we can move a reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies or of any other Department. While we do that, the whole question of the Under-Secretary remains open. We are fortunate in having an Indian as Under-Secretary now. Unfortunately he has to sit in the Upper House. It would be wise in future, now that we are beginning responsible Government in India, to have two Under-Secretaries for India, one an Indian sitting in the Upper House and the other a Member of this House. Very few things have done more, I will not say
to reconcile India to British rule, but to please all thinking Indians, than the appointment of Lord Sinha to the past of Under-Secretary, and we ought to do all we can to make that sort of appointment a permanent part of our Constitution. Lord Sinha has done excellent work on the Committee as a member of the House of Lords, and it would be unfortunate if we went back now to the old system of an English Secretary of State and an English Under-Secretary. We shall keep up this valuable innovation that the right hon. Gentleman has made. Although it is out of order to move any Amendment, I feel it right to voice a tribute to the excellent work that Lord Sinha has done, and to express the hope that either Lord Sinha or somebody else in his position may continue to sit in the House of Lords as an Indian to look after Indian affairs.

Colonel YATE: I can realise the point of the hon. Member's remarks. I have been reading a paper which is very much quoted to us by the Secretary of State, "The Servant of India." In that paper I saw the following extract, which is particularly applicable to what the hon Member has just said:
The Secretary of State's salary is now to be placed on the British estimates. It is going to be possible for Members of the House of Commons to raise a debate on any question of Indian administration in Committee of Supply. This will be an invaluable lever in the hands of the British democracy to check the vagaries of the Executive in India.
So I congratulate the Secretary of State on the great possibilities which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has found to stimulate the Secretary of State on every possible occasion, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will enjoy the situation.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.—(Council of India.)

The following Amendments shall be made in Section three of the principal Act in relation to the composition of the Council of India, the qualification, term of office, and remuneration of its members:
(1) The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall have effect as though "eight" and "twelve" were substituted for "ten" and "fourteen" respectively, as the minimum and maximum number of members, provided that the tenure of office of any person who is a member of the council at the time of the passing of this Act shall not be affected by this provision.

Colonel YATE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (1), to insert the words
The provisions of Sub-section (2) should have effect as though 'His Majesty in Council' were substituted for 'the Secretary of State.'
Section 2 of the original Act provides that the right of filling a vacancy on the Council shall be vested in the Secretary, of State. I desire that in future the right of filling a vacancy shall in future be vested in His Majesty in Council, and not in the Secretary of State. It is most important that the Council should be appointed by His Majesty in Council. His Majesty is the Emperor of India and is looked up to by all the Indians, and if you want to make the Indian Council a real body working under His Majesty in Council, His Majesty in Council should appoint the members.

Mr. FISHER: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment. On reflection he will find that there is no substantial advantage in it. The Amendment, if accepted, would only create further complications without altering the situation as it exists under the text of the Bill. If the Amendment were accepted His Majesty in Council would make the appointments presumably on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for India. In fact the appointments would be made by the Secretary of State for India. It is true that there would be a formal change, but there would be no other change.

Colonel YATE: I cannot agree to that. In my opinion it would be a matter of great pride to India that these members of the Council should be appointed by His Majesty in Council. The question should be most seriously considered.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want to know why the Council of India should be retained? Speaking in the Mesopotamia Debate the Secretary of State gave reasons why the Council of India should not be retained.

Mr. MONTAGU: Can you quote?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes—
Even if the House of Commons has to give orders to the Secretary of State the Secretary of State is not his own master. In matters vitally affecting India he can be over-ruled by a majority of his Council.
He goes on to say,
And these gentlemen are appointed for seven years, and can only be controlled by the Houses
of Parliament, by a Resolution carried by both Houses or Parliament calling for their resignation. The whole system of the India Office is so designed as to prevent control by the House of Commons.
What I want is an explanation of that, and why, seeing that everybody in the India Office knows the right hon. Gentleman's views of this Council, he now accepts the idea of the Council of State and prevents the India Office from being, as it should be, the exact parallel to the Colonial Office. We want India to become ultimately just what Australia is to-day; we want our control over India to be as great or as little as it is over Australia. The presence of this Council of India differentiates, in a way that is not flattering to India, between the cases of India and of the rest of the Colonies of the Empire.

Mr. MONTAGU: I feel bound, even at this late hour, to answer my hon. and gallant Friend as shortly and as conclusively as I can. The Council of India, which is now to be used is a very different Council of India from that which was then under consideration. It is to be appointed for a shorter term, and it is to be paid out of moneys voted by Parliament, and, therefore, to some extent it will be controlled by Parliament. In these ways it loses many of the features I commented on in the speech quoted. Further than that, you cannot have a Secretary of State for India in the position of a Secretary of State for the Colonies until you have responsible government in India. My experience is that gentlemen in India always want the Secretary of State to interfere with the Government of India when they are in agreement with the Secretary of State, and always want him not to interfere when they are in agreement with the Government. I hope questions will not come home when a Governor in India is in harmony with his Legislature. When he is not, the Secretary of State will have to take more control over events in India than the Secretary of State for the Colonies has over the self-governing Dominions. If he is going to do that, he cannot and ought not to act without expert advice. There are not many occasions when the collective voice of the Council is of much importance one way or the other, but the individual assistance of councillors is absolutely indispensable. One of my great objections to the India Office procedure was that too
much emphasis was laid upon the collective Council. The Amendments made in other parts of the Bill will enable the Council to function much more individually. I think that the Council has been enormously improved, and the invaluable experience of the councillors is being retained. Therefore no useful object, but a great disservice to the Government of India would be achieved if it were abolished.

Colonel YATE: May I say how glad I am at the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman to the usefulness of the Council of India? I hope, considering what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that he will give favourable consideration to the other Amendments which I have on the Paper, and that he will try to get men fresh from India to the Council and substitute three years' absence from India for five.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 32.—(Further Provisions as to Council of India.)

(1) The provision in Section six of the principal Act which prescribes the quorum for meetings of the Council of India shall cease to have effect, and the Secretary of State may provide for a quorum by such directions as he may issue in this behalf.
(2) The provision in Section eight of the principal Act which requires weekly meetings of the Council of India shall cease to have effect.
(3) Section ten of the principal Act shall have effect as though the words "all business of the council or committees thereof is to be transacted" were omitted, and the words "the business of the Secretary of State in Council or the Council of India shall be transacted, and any Order made or act done in accordance with such direction shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be treated as being an Order of the Secretary of State in Council" were inserted in lieu thereof.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member for Melton has given notice to move to leave out Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), which are all the operating words of the Clause.

Mr. MONTAGU: I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to move these Amendments. The object of this Clause is to make it possible to have a portfolio system or something approximating to it. It was the unanimous wish of the Joint Committee.

Colonel YATE: If a quorum of three out of twelve is fixed, and if one of the three is in favour of the view of the Secretary of State, he can overrule everything where
there are only three present, as the Secretary of State has a casting vote. I think that is putting too much power in the bands of the Secretary of State, and I suggest that the present quorum should be allowed to remain.

Mr. MONTAGU: The Council would have a voice in deciding how to transact their business, and they are not likely to assent to the quorum my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 33.—(Control of Secretary of State.)

The Secretary of State in Council may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, by rule regulate and restrict the exercise of the powers of superintendence, direction, and control, vested in the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State in Council, by the principal Act, or otherwise, in such manner as may appear necessary or expedient in order to give effect to the purposes of this Act.

Before any Rules are made under this Section relating to subjects other than transferred subjects, the rules proposed to be made shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and such rules shall not be made unless both Houses by resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition, or with modifications or additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given the Secretary of State in Council may make such rules in the form in which they have been approved, and such rules on being so made shall be of full force and effect.

Any other rules shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His -Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next, thirty days on which that House has sat after the rules are laid before it praying that the rules or any of them may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the rules or any of them, and those rules shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, after the word "be" ["rules shall be laid"], to insert the words
submitted to a Standing Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider Indian affairs, and if approved by a majority of such Committtee shall then be.
This refers to the Rules, and I want to have referred to Parliament those affecting the franchise proposals, so that we may have the chance of considering them when they are framed. The first part of the Clause says that the Secretary of State may "by rule regulate and restrict the exercise of the powers of superintendence direction, and control, vested in the Secretary of State," and so on. The next part of the Clause says that such Rules are to be submitted, not to a Standing Joint Committee, but to Parliament, and
I want brought into the ambit of this Clause the Rules and Regulations dealing with the franchise.

Mr. MONTAGU: I much appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's object, but I do not think he has chosen the right way to affect it. You cannot, I think, legislate for a Standing Committee of both Houses, because a Joint Committee is set up by the vote of each House each Session. What I offer on behalf of His Majesty's Government is that there shall be a motion brought in in each House to appoint such a Standing Committee at the beginning of next Session. It is quite inconceivable that Parliament will allow these Rules to be brought before them until they have been considered by the Standing Committee which they have appointed for the purpose. This Committee will be charged by Parliament to investigate on its behalf these Indian affairs. Some of the Rules under Clause 33 are to be brought up for affirmative Resolution by both Houses, because they are intended to limit the responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament, and, therefore, they ought clearly not to be made without the affirmative Resolution of both Houses. I do not think that applies to any other Rule. I will give my hon. and gallant Friend this undertaking that is due from me to him. I promise that before the Rules are made embodying the franchise, in which he is so interested, I will submit them to this House for approval, and give Members of this House an opportunity of making Amendments.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that submitting them to a Joint Committee is not much satisfaction to me, as I am not on the Joint Committee.

Mr. MONTAGU: But how does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know that Parliament will not appoint him to the next Standing Committee? That is a matter for Parliament.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. STEWART: I had a Motion down to leave out the Clause, my object being to ascertain what would happen in certain circumstances if the Secretary of State divested himself, as he proposes to
do, of his authority. As probably India will claim full fiscal autonomy under this Bill, what will be the position? Supposing India were to declare full fiscal autonomy, and try to make a bargain with some other country, giving that country better terms than she was prepared to offer this country? If the Secretary of State divests himself of all his powers, will India be able to legislate in this way, and will it not mean the breaking-up of any system of Preference, the principle of which the present Government have accepted in a tentative form? I merely suggest that, for the Secretary of State to destroy his authority in this way is altogether unnecessary.

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think fiscal autonomy conies into this Clause at all; it is merely concerned with such matters as allowing the Government of India to act in administrative matters when it is in agreement with the Legislative Councils. All measures connected with fiscal questions will be Bills, and all Bills will have to receive the sanction of the Crown. The King has a veto over all legislation, and therefore nothing that can be done under Section 33 will, I think, be likely to affect that matter. I wish it were otherwise, because if there is anybody in this House who thinks we ought still to manipulate the tariffs of India in the interests of any part of Great Britain I should like to test that by a Division. My hon. Friend says, "How are we to guarantee that India will not manipulate her affairs to the advantage of somebody else?" What guarantee have we that Australia will not do the same? There is nothing which would do us so much harm as the slightest suspicion that we want to alter the tariffs of India in the interests of British trade. We have the solidarity of the Empire to depend upon, and the Imperial goodwill, which has always been developed by mutual trust, and I think my hon. Friend is perfectly right to have raised this question, which ought to be decided, but I do not think it can be decided under this Bill.

Mr. STEWART: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his information. I was not advocating—

Mr. MONTAGU: I am quite sure of that.

Mr. STEWART: I merely asked, so that we should know where we stood.

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope the hon. Member did not think I was accusing him.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—(Correspondence between Secretary of State and India.)

So much of Section five of the principal Act as relates to orders and communications sent to India from the United Kingdom and to orders made in the United Kingdom, and Sections eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen of the principal Act, shall cease to have effect, and the procedure for the sending of orders and communications to India and in general for correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Governor-General in Council or any local government shall be such as may be prescribed by order of the Secretary of State in Council.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Colonel YATE: What is the result of this Clause? The Clause in the principal Act says the Council of India are to conduct the business transacted in the United Kingdom in relation to the Government of India. Am I right in supposing that the Secretary of State is outing the Council of India and putting himself in in personal charge in this matter? Is he depriving the Council of their statutory rights?

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the principal Act, as amended by this Bill, as it issued from the Joint. Committee, he will see that Clause 5 remains intact and reads as follows:
The Council of India shall under the direction of the Secretary of State, and subject to the provisions of this Act, conduct the business transacted in the United Kingdom in relation to the Government of India and the correspondence with India.
That remains under the heading "Duties of Council," and that means that the statutory duty of the Council of India is being left to it under this Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clauses 34 (Correspondence between Secretary of State and India) and 35 (High, Commissioner for India) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 36.—(The Civil Services in India.)

(2) The Secretary of State in Council may make Rules for regulating the classification of the civil services in India, the methods of their recruitment, their conditions of service, pay and allowances, and discipline and conduct. Such Rules may, to such extent and in respect of such matters as may be prescribed, delegate the power of making Rules to the Governor-General in Council or to local governments, or authorise the Indian legislature or local legislatures to make laws regulating the public services:
Provided that every person appointed before the commencement of this Act by the Secretary of State in Council to the civil service of the Crown in India shall retain all his existing or accruing rights or shall receive such compensation for the loss of any of them as the Secretary of State in Council may consider just and equitable.

Mr. OMAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "may" ["The Secretary of State in Council may make rules"], to insert the words, "when a period of two years has elapsed from the commencement of this Act."
At this rather late hour I shall be as brief as possible, but I wish to get rid of the invidious task put upon me. These Amendments have been drawn up by a strong body of very distinguished members who were once in the Indian Civil Service who feel the extreme difficulty in which the service will be placed by this Clause. They have charged me to bring the Amendments before this House for their protection. They want protection from the form of oppression that will be found in the Government of India's letter of 5th March, 1919. I will quote (see page 17) a very few lines: "Ministers may naturally prefer their own agents and be disposed to treat lightly vested claims to more important and desirable appointments. Officers and Civil servants refusing, render themselves unpopular and will be treated with less consideration than they receive now." …An officer finding his position made intolerable should be entitled to apply to the Government of India for redress against the Minister….
12.0 M.
In the case of the Minister being found to be wrong in his treatment of the Civil servant a difficult position would undoubtedly ensue. The ultimate solution would be to grant retirement with proportional pension. This is really a dreadful piece of tyranny. A Minister falls out with a Civil servant, and the Central Government finds that the Civil servant is right and the Minister is wrong. The answer at present to that is that the Civil servant is to be retired with a proportionate pension. I can imagine nothing more dreadful than that one, whose life's aim has been to carry out his duty in that very greatest of services, the Indian Civil Service, who engages in controversy with a Minister and is put down by him, and who is subsequently pronounced by the Central Government to be perfectly in the right, should be offered money
—not redress—but a proportionate pension. Why should this dishonouring charge be kept in the Bill, and why should a Civil servant, who is acknowledged to be right, be offered money, not redress, in this way?

Mr. MONTAGU: What the hon. Member is complaining of has not been adopted by the Joint Committee, and it is not in the Bill. There is in the measure quite a different procedure, giving the Civil servant a right to approach the Governor-General under Clause 36. Therefore, to postpone the making of the rules does not meet the point at all.

Mr. OMAN: Do I understand now that the result of this proposal will now be not offering a proportionate pension but redress and reinstatement, or will it still only be this proportionate pension?

Sir J. D. REES: As an old Civil servant I confess that I share the view which has been expressed by the Secretary of State. When this matter was very fully discussed with the intention of doing justice to Civil servants I urged that the suggestion of the hon. Member was not necessary because it was always done as a matter of course. Therefore I do not see in what respect the public service is not adequately safeguarded.

Mr. MONTAGU: The Joint Committee have recommended retirement on a proportionate pension when it is the desire of the Civil servant, and this is forced upon him. The personal concurrence of the Governor is regarded as essential in the case of orders affecting the position and prospects of officers, and that is the procedure we adopt. My hon. Friend has often asked questions on what he calls the pronouncement of the Government of India, but this is a pronouncement in favour of Civil servants which places them in the same position as those under the Executive Council with a right of appeal.

Colonel YATE: We all know that there has been much anxiety on this point. A certain number of these Civil servants may desire to retire, and will they be allowed to take their proportionate pensions and go before this Bill comes into operation? That is a question which is very much agitating the Civil servants of India. They have a certain covenant and the Secretary of State has never told me whether those covenants are being broken by this new procedure or not. I put a question yester-
day about the taking away the appointments of Governorships from the Viceroy, and we thought that was reserved under the terms of the covenant. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to break those covenants will he say openly that they are to be broken and what steps he has taken to give compensation to those who refuse to serve under the new conditions of proportionate pensions?

Mr. MONTAGU: I shall exercise my discretion with the advice and assistance of my Council. It must be obvious that it is far better that a Civil servant should retire than work unwillingly under the new Constitution. I want the co-operation of all those who remain in India to make this measure a success. As a matter of fact, all the information I get from India is that Civil servants, having expressed their apprehensions about certain aspects of this Bill and their preference for certain Amendments, will, in accordance with the great traditions of the Service, do their best to make it a success. So far as I have observed, the agitation seems to have been far more among ex-Civil servants.

Mr. OMAN: I am urging that the right to retirement on fair terms should be safeguarded. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure me on that point, and that Civil servants have proper redress, I shall be satisfied.

Mr. J. JONES: Seeing that the people of India have to pay all these pensions and charges may I ask what is the annual income of the majority of the Indian people? Is it not less than £1 a year?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is not relevant to this Clause.
Amendment negatived.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
Provided that every person appointed after the commencement of this Act by the Secretary of State in Council to the Civil Service of the Crown in India shall only retain those rights, or receive compensation in respect of them, subject to the unrestricted right of the Government of India to amend this Act respecting the Government of India, or to change the rules and regulations made under this or any subsequent Act, without involving the Crown in any liability for compensation to such persons.
I think we should, certainly in India, on this question, carry out exactly the same principles as we do in this country. It is
well known that when you amalgamate four or five towns into one and the town clerks lose their jobs, the ratepayers have to find compensation. What my Amendment seeks to do is to prevent the creation of any further vested interests of this nature during the ten years before India gets full responsible government—at any rate, in the Provincial Legislature. It must be obvious to the Court that the great difficulty is the fact that the Indian Civil servant will now be subordinate to Indian Ministers in certain affairs, such as education, and local government, and agricultural administration. The Indian Minister in turn is responsible to the Assembly, and these are cases in which difficulty may arise in years to come. The next step forward will be to give complete responsible government to the local Legislative-Assembly. The I.C.S. will be definitely under Indian rule, just as Civil servants in this country are under the rule of the right hon. Gentleman on that bench. When that time comes these men may find that their jobs are no longer open to them. There may be retrenchment on a very large scale, and everyone who has been appointed before the passing of this Act will in that case be entitled to full compensation for the loss of his position if he is retrenched. What I seek to provide by this Amendment is that no fresh vested interests shall be created during the next ten years. People who join the I.C.S. must realise that if they are retrenched in future years they will not have a right to claim compensation. It is of great importance that this should be stated clearly, otherwise we are likely to have the greatest friction between India and ourselves in times to come. India is now reaching the stage to which Japan came after she had engaged a number of British people to teach the Japanese how to do certain work. The information imparted, the teachers were sent back. The same thing is going to occur in India. We are teaching the Indians to manage their own affairs and in time they are bound to take the places of their British teachers who have hitherto done the work and have trained them. When that stage is reached there will be great friction, especially if the Indian Civil servants feel that they are ill-treated, and we do not want them to feel that; therefore that should be made quite clear to those who go out during the next few years, that their jobs will be temporary and not permanent. The danger is that in the next few years the Indian Civil Service will
be packed with new men who will consider that they have large claims to compensation if steps are not taken to warn them that their position is not a covenant for life, but is only for a term of years in view of the possibility of retrenchment in the future.

Mr. MONTAGU: This is a very far-reaching Amendment, because what my hon. and gallant Friend does—unwittingly, I am sure—is to empower the Government of India to amend this Bill. The Government of India cannot amend any Act. It is the function of the Indian Legislature to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. Secondly, the Indian Legislature cannot amend this Act because it is an Act of Parliament, which no subordinate Legislature can amend. He talks about Rules and Regulations made by the Government of India. The Rules and Regulations to which he refers are not Rules and Regulations made by the Government of India, but are made by the Secretary of State in Council. Those are difficulties owing to the way in which the Amendment is drafted. In the second place, he seeks to guard against a danger which I do not think exists. This Bill gives compensation to Civil servants appointed before the passing of the Bill. It does not give compensation to anybody appointed after the passing of the Bill. Every Clause as it stands is a Clause to show that that constitution is temporary and transitory and bears upon it the mark that in ten years' time—I am not looking so definitely into the future as my hon. and gallant Friend—there will be an exploration with a view to a further step forward. Therefore every Indian Civil servant, be he Indian or British, who enters the service after the passing of this Bill knows that he is going out there to help India through a transitional stage of self-government, and no question of compensation can ever arise.
Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not select any other Amendments on this Clause, nor on Clauses 37, 38, and 40.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 37 (Appointments to. the Indian Civil Service), 38 (Public Service Commission), and 39 (Financial Control) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 40.—(Rues under Part IV.)

"Rules made under this Part of this Act shall not be made except with the concurrence of the Majority of votes at a meeting of the Council of India."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Colonel YATE: With reference to my Amendment on the Paper, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will accept a two-thirds majority instead of a bare majority?
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 41.—(Statutory Commission.)

(1) At the expiration of ten years after the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall submit for the approval of both Houses of Parliament the names of persons to act as a commission for the purposes of this Section.
(2) The persons whose names are so submitted, subject to the approval of, and to any alterations made by Parliament, shall be a commission for the purpose of inquiring into the working of the system of government, the growth of education, and the development of representative institutions, in British India, and matters connected therewith, and the commission shall report as to whether and to what extent it is desirable to establish the principle of responsible government, or to extend, modify, or restrict the degree of responsible government then existing therein, including the question whether the establishment of second chambers of the local legislatures is or is not desirable.
(3) The commission shall also inquire into and report on any other matters affecting British India and the provinces, which may be referred to the commission by the Secretary of State.

Mr. SPOOR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "At the expiration of," and to insert instead thereof the word "within."
Several Amendments proposed from this side of the Committee have been described by the right hon. Gentleman as being rather unreasonable in their character. I am quite sure he cannot apply that adjective to this Amendment. This matter was discussed at some length in the Joint Committee, and I believe that a feeling was shared by some members of that Committee that it was desirable something more elastic than the terms actually used in this Bill should be adopted. The proposal simply means that the setting up of this statutory Commission should not necessarily be deferred for a period of ten years. I cannot imagine that any argument on my part would be necessary to convince the Committee of the wisdom of this suggested alteration. After all said and done, this measure, which proposes to confer upon India a certain degree of
self-government, is one which no one here can foresee the result of. There has been a good deal of speculation as to how this proposal is actually going to work in India, and no very definite evidence has been submitted to us to indicate that it is necessarily going to be a successful scheme. There have been critics on both sides of the House of the principle of diarchy, and there have been critics of other very vital matters which are raised by the Bill, and I am sure, in the judgment of reasonable people, there is a possibility that, before a great deal of time has elapsed, it may be necessary to make pretty considerable changes in the scheme that we are now dealing with. This Clause suggests that, having conferred this limited amount of control upon the country for ten years, nothing more shall be done. We have had abundant evidence during the last five years that events sometimes move with extraordinary rapidity. Changes in different countries occur not in the. course of years, but of days, and all who try to estimate the many forces which are at work in the world to-day—forces which are bound to be productive of immense changes and developments which none of us can quite foresee—must admit that it is in every way likely that within a comparatively short space of time there will be changes in India which will necessitate a revision of the scheme as it is now proposed. We have been told again and again that there has been in India an extraordinary awakening of the political consciousness of the people, and yet if this Clause is allowed to go, and if the limited franchise proposals are finally adopted, it will mean that it will be quite impossible for this House to make the necessary provision for a change either in the franchise system or anything else for a period of ten years.

Sir J. D. REES: The Government of India can make changes in the franchise.

Mr. SPOOR: There are those who believe that the passing of this Bill will do something to allay the political agitation that has been going on in that country during recent years. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the passage of the Bill will have precisely the opposite effect. There are those who hope—and it is a reasonable hope—that political agitation in India will cease with the passing of the Bill. If we are waiting to see development in that
country, it is not desirable that agitation should cease. If it goes on, if we get an electorate increasingly educated in the exercise and use of political power, is it likely that that electorate, whether it be limited or extended by the Government of India within a shorter period than ten years, is necessarily going to remain content with the machinery we are setting up for their use? We have absolutely no right in any way to seek to tie the hands of future Parliaments. It is quite conceivable that within a short space of time there will be a change in the Government of this country. There are those who believe, and certainly those who hope, that the time is not far distant when there will be a change in the Government of this country. It is unwise on the part of this House and the present Government to fetter or in any way render more difficult the tasks that any future Government may have to perform. Probably it will be said that all that is necessary will be to repeal this Act and to introduce new legislation when such legislation is required. We are putting an unnecessary barrier in the way of possible development in the future if we carry this Clause as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman has not accepted a single Amendment that has been put forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am rather interested in these approving cheers. I do not know that they are an indication of the wisdom of those who voice them, for in legislation as in other things it is not wise to avoid elasticity, especially when we live in a world of constant change and under conditions when forces are operating the ultimate result of which no man can foresee. In asking the Secretary of State to accept the suggestion that instead of putting off the setting up of this Commission for ten years, he should provide that if the necessity arises it will be possible to set up the Commission at an earlier date. It may be that in two, five, or seven years a situation may arise in India which will demand action, and it is unwise to put anything in this Bill which will prevent the free action of Parliament. I want to look at this matter from the point of view of the people of India. There is far too much a tendency on the part of the present House to look at the matter simply from the point of view of Britain.

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

Mr. SPOOR: Well, hon. Members may differ from me, but certainly it is the
opinion I hold, and an opinion which has been strengthened during the course of the two days' Debate. There is a tendency to look on that point of view of England. Let us take the kindliest view of this Bill that we possibly can. Let us say that it is—and after bearing some of the speakers I am quite prepared to believe that it is—a very sincere and honest attempt to help the people of India into a larger liberty, and that it is a sincere and honest attempt to give them the beginnings of a system of self-government. Let us hope that they will accept it in the spirit in which I am suggesting it is being given by this Committee. But, if they find included in this Bill the proposal that for ten years no. further progress is going to be possible, how are the people of India going to receive that? I do very strongly urge, and I ask with the utmost sincerity, that my right hon. Friend should give way on this one point, and should say that this Commission shall, if necessary, be set up within a shorter period. It does not mean that it will be, but, at all events, the door will be open. I am quite sure that any attempt to make this in any sense anything but a merely transitory measure, or, at all events, a measure to deal with transitory and changing conditions, would be a very unwise one. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot accept the Amendment? He knows the point that I am raising, I am quite sure, without any argument on my part. I merely state what I do in order, if possible, to secure the sympathy and co-operation of other members of the Committee in a suggestion which, I believe, is eminently reasonable.

Mr. MONTAGU: I should like very much to respond to the request of my hon. Friend opposite. He accuses me of not having accepted any Amendments. I had flattered myself up to the time of that remark—although, of course, it does not rest with me to accept or reject Amendments; that is a matter for the Committee —that I had convinced the Committee that the Amendments should be resisted. Each Amendment has been discussed honestly, and I have tried to do my best to answer the arguments that have been brought forward. In this particular case, the reason I cannot accept my Friend's view is that he still believes that this House of Parliament alters the Indian Constitution in response to Indian agitation, and he says he hopes that agitation will continue. Well, I do not. I think
the one thing that has been demonstrated to India to-night, and throughout the last two days, is the great willingness, despite an insignificant minority, to grant with enthusiasm to India as soon as may be, the stages of the surrender of her trusteeship to a well-qualified Indian Government. Where is the room for agitation? They have only got to do the work that is in front of them. They have only got to bury the old hatchet and then come again to Parliament, and I am quite sure that Parliament will act, when the allotted time comes, in the same spirit that we have adopted. It is not a question of agitation that will alter the appointed path of India. It might delay it. Why ten years' delay? You must choose some time, and some definite date. I believe that the father of this Act—the man who really made this Act possible—was the illustrious chief under whom I first served at the India Office—Lord Morley—when he and Lord Minto promoted an Act about ten years ago. It seems to Parliament, I hope, that India is ready for the next step forward, ten years after the coming into existence of the Morley-Minter measure. What does it mean? It means that before this Commission goes out there will have been held three elections on the new electorate. Is that too long a time to judge whether the electorate can hold the Ministers serving it to be responsible in the proper way? After all, it is no use judging it in one Parliament; you must have two, and are you not safer when you have three?
If there is a remarkable and unforeseeable development in Indian conditions in the short space of ten years—because ten years is a very short time—my hon. Friend is quite wrong; it does not he the hands of Parliament in any way whatever. There can always be a Commission appointed in the interim. What this Act says is that there must be a Commission appointed at the end of ten years. My hon. Friend knows, surely, that some of his colleagues on the Committee thought the ten years too short. It seems to me as good as any other time; it is no use leaving it vague. What we want India to know is that at the definite and appointed time—unless unforeseeable circumstances arise—by Act of Parliament there will be an investigation to see whether there can be another step forward. It does not and cannot mean that in no circumstances whatever will there be an investigation, although, I believe that
ten years is the right time to hold an investigation, and although I am perfectly certain that the success of that investigation depends upon my hon. Friend's hope being falsified, and that India really settles down to work and not to agitate.

Mr. ACLAND: I hope, in spite of his excellently-phrased speech, that my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw his Amendment. Let us compare the probable development of India with the development of this country. I cannot tell how many stages this development may take. Suppose it takes four or five or ten years; suppose the whole development of constitutional government takes fifty years. That same development in this country has taken 700 years. Will not India be doing very well, and shall not we be doing one of the greatest works that the British Empire has ever done in carrying a country towards complete self-government, if we do it in that time? As the Secretary for State has said, we do not want any loophole in this Bill for people to think that they can help forward development except by making a success of the powers they are given. No agitation or anything of that kind will hasten it. The only thing that this Committee and Parliament can look to will be the success of the actual powers we are now giving.

Mr. BENNETT: There was a time when I was inclined to look at this proposal somewhat in the spirit of my hon. Friend, but having heard his speech to-night I am absolutely opposed to the Amendment which he has put forward. His speech has strengthened my determination to adhere to the proposal as it stands. For what has been the outstanding feature of his speech? There is a determined attempt to minimise the value of the concessions which are embodied in this Bill. Not only now, but throughout the whole of the Committee stage of this Bill, the hon. Member has sought to minimise and belittle every effort that is being made to extend the liberties of the Indian people. He speaks of a "mere five" "a mere 2 per cent." who are enfranchised. Has he forgotten—I am sure he knows well that, by the Reform Act of 1832, 500,000 electors were added to an electorate, roughly, of 5,000. Yet we put 5,000,000 of people in India politically on their feet, and it is nothing. Further, he speaks of the possibility of agitation, not merely as a thing to be
looked forward to with misgiving, but he hopes to see the agitation. He has used the words of one of the most extreme of the witnesses before the Committee, who said that if they were not perfectly satisfied they would go on agitating. It is no part of my duty to endeavour to teach my hon. Friend what his duty as a patriotic Englishman is. But I contemplate the duty of an Englishman, standing in the House to-day, whose words will be heard in India, as being to say to the people of India: "England is making an honest effort to set your feet forward in the path of progress. We have done our best, extreme men and moderate men. We have had the most representative Committee that could possibly be put together; we have done our best to do fairly and justly and generously by India. Now, take advantage of the machinery we are enabling you to set up; take it in the spirit in which it is offered, and endeavour to make a, success of it." Had the hon. Member spoken in that way, he would have done a real service to India. But I do hope we shall have, even from those benches to-night, a disavowal of the desire of the hon. Member to see the agitation, which has prevailed for some years past, continue. It is very largely owing to the way in which the hon. Member has envisaged the near future in India that I feel it my duty to vote against his Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Amendment itself requires only two words. The whole necessity of the Amendment arises from the fact that the Labour party may be in power in this country in four years' time. We wish to make our position quite clear. If that should be so, we hope we shall not regard ourselves as bound by this first Sub-section. We wish to protest now that when, and if, we propose to send out a Commission to India to inquire into the working of the Act some five years from now that it will not be a sufficient reply to say that we have said we have already agreed to an Act which says that the Commission shall not be sent for ten years. That is the whole object of the Amendment. I am also led to say something more by the remarks which have fallen from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) and hon. Members during this Debate. The right hon. Member for Camborne took up an attitude which, I think, requires some comment. He said, "Oh, this is going quite quick enough.
What are ten years in the life of a nation? We had to wait twenty or thirty years between our Reform Bills. It is all going all right." But I wish the right hon. Gentleman could have some of that capacity for putting himself in other people's shoes that is possessed by other members of the Committee. Suppose he was an Indian and was being governed by Europeans, would he look at the question in quite such a complacent light? Can he wonder that when that sort of thing is said by a man in a responsible position that Indians feel somewhat indignant?

Mr. ACLAND: I said the 95 per cent. were still illiterate, and had not any sort of training in democracy, and that they have to be gradually brought forward.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: He should put himself in the shoes of the 5 per cent. who are literate, as he is literate himself. Then the hon. Member (Mr. Bennett) talked about the continuation of agitation, and alluded to this Bill as a concession. It is exactly because you will allude to this Bill as a concession that there is likely to be a continuation of agitation. It is not a concession to agitation, or anything of that sort, but because the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, who used to be a Liberal, although he is in a Coalition Government, does genuinely believe, I am quite certain, that India ought to be self-governing in the British Empire; and because of that he has brought in this Bill. It is not a concession to agitation. It is because it is the right thing to do; it is our duty; but the hon. Member has, regarded it as a grudging kind of concession to the Indian people, something. to bribe them to be good children. It is because we have a right to do it, not because we are conceding anything to anybody.
As regards the talk about agitation, I think it is the duty of every Indian subject, their duty to their country, to continue agitation for justice and freedom as long as they are alive. We do not, by passing this, that or the other, put an end to agitation; if agitation ends, death supervenes. We want people to agitate to better their conditions, and for freer conditions, continually, in every country. What we do want to secure, we on these benches, is that agitation shall be carried on upon constitutional lines instead of unconstitutional lines. That was the- object of the speech of the hon. Member for
Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor). He wishes that agitation should continue; so do I, on the right lines. We believe that this step will involve other steps, and when the results of these steps are brought to fruition we shall satisfy India and this will be achieved partly by agitation, continuous efforts of agitation, and partly by efforts of real Liberalism by Members of this House, so that the Indians, so we think, may be fitly regarded as our fellow-subjects in the British Commonwealth.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not altogether agree with the hon, Member who has just spoken as to this not being a concession and the result of agitation. We quite accept the statement that it is not altogether the result of agitation. It is really the result of a pledge given during the War, given by the Council and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Council during the War. We made this declaration, and it was received with great acclamation in India. It is simply to carry out that pledge. It is simply carrying out that pledge to put this Bill on the Statute Book. But one or two of us think it does not go far enough, and we are now being told we are extravagant and so on, but it is only carrying out some of the things promised by all the statesmen of the Allies about giving freedom to all subject peoples. The Secretary of State for India said there was an insignificant minority in India who were agitating for self-government. I wonder if he has read some of the speeches of the Secretary of State for War, one in introducing the Army Estimates, and his references to India and the Empire?

The CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is the omission of the term of ten years, and the hon. Member should address his remarks to that point.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I think the minority referred to as "insignificant" is a rather larger one. If the words proposed were accepted it would be useful to the moderate party in India. A considerable minority who are called extremists, I do not know whether justly or not, say that this Bill is not sufficient to meet their legitimate aspirations. I have been urged by some of my friends, Englishmen and not in India, to try, if possible, to get the Bill rejected, and they say the Bill will do more harm than good. I met those views—

The CHAIRMAN: That is more suitable to a speech on the Second or Third Reading. It seems to be a general speech.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 42 (Modification of Section 124 of Principal Act) and 43 (Signification of Royal Assent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 44.—(Power to make Rules.)

Mr. BENNETT: I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in my name—[requiring proposed Rules to be published in India]. The object is clear on the surface, and I am quite satisfied that it can be achieved.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 45 (Amendments of Principal Act to carry Act into effect, etc.) and 46 (Definition of Official) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 47.—(Short Title, Commencement, Interpretation, and Transitory Provisions.)

(1) This Act may be cited as the Government of India Act, 1919, and this principal Act, as amended by any Act for the time being in force, may be cited as the Government of India Act.

(2) This Act shall come into operation on such date or dates as the Governor-General in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, may appoint, and different dates may be appointed, for different provisions of this Act, and for different parts of India.

On the dates appointed for the coming in, into operation of the provisions of this Act as respects any executive or legislative council all the members of the council then in office shall go out of office, but may, if otherwise qualified, be re-appointed, re-nominated or re-elected, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act.

(3) Any reference in any enactment, whether an Act of Parliament or made by any authority-in British India, or in any Rules, Regulations or Orders made under any such enactment, or in any letters patent or other document, to any enactment, repealed by the principal Act, shall for all purposes be construed as references to the principal Act as amended by this Act, or to the corresponding provision thereof.

(4) Any reference in any enactment in force in India, whether an Act of Parliament or made by any authority in British India, or in any Rules, Regulations, or Orders made under any such enactment, or in any letters patent or other document, to any Indian legislative authority, shall for all purposes be construed as references to the corresponding authority constituted by the principal Act as amended by this Act.

(5) If any difficulty arises as to the first establishment of the Indian legislature or any legislative council after the commencement of this Act or otherwise in first giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of State in
Council or the Governor-General in Council, as occasion may require, may by Order do anything which appears to them necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Colonel YATE: I had here again on the Paper my proposal to leave out the words "The Secretary of State" and insert instead thereof the words "His Majesty." I had a similar proposal on a preceding Clause. I would like to point out that the consideration that the King is Emperor of India seems to have been forgotten in framing these Clauses. His Majesty has visited India, and has been received and acknowledged by the people there who have shown their warm appreciation of his being their Emperor. It seems to have been overlooked that the position of India in the world has been completely changed. India has been admitted to a full partnership with us in the British Empire; she has taken her place in the Imperial War Cabinet and in the War Conference, and was an integral part of the Peace Conference in common with the other belligerents. I think it is only right that the words "His Majesty in Council" should have been inserted. We must remember the position India occupies, which is one of equality. I ask the Secretary of State for India to take this into consideration. I think this point of the date of operation of the Act should have been reserved for submission to His Majesty in Council and not to the Secretary of State.
Question put, and agreed to.
The following new Clause stood on the Paper in the names of Mr. SPOOR, Colonel WEDGWOOD, and Mr. A. HENDERSON:

(Declaration of Rights.)

It is declared that the following rights of His Majesty's subjects in India are recognised, and that any laws which are inconsistent with these rights are hereby, to the extent of their inconsistency, repealed:—

(a) That all Indian subjects of His Majesty and all subjects naturalised or resident in India are equal before the law, and that laws and the administration thereof shall not discriminate between status, colour, caste, or creed;
(b) That no subject of His Majesty in India shall be liable to suffer in liberty, property, or life in respect of freedom of speech, publication, or association, nor shall the free expression of opinion in the Press be subject to restriction or penalty, save only under ordinary process of law in legal and open trial in the common Courts of the land.

The CHAIRMAN: The first new Clause on the Paper—[Declaration, of Rights]— should really not be a new Clause. It is rather a proclamation or a preamble.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it not quite normal to have in a Bill which is instituting a new constitution a Clause making a declaration of rights such as we passed in 1689? It seems to me that the analogy is complete. In granting a written constitution we should at the same time include in the constitution a declaration of rights, saying what we think are the rights of the subject under the British Crown. The Act as a Constitutional Act seems to be incomplete without some such declaration that the inhabitants of India are equal before the law, that the Habeas Corpus Act works there as in England, and that all men shall be tried in open Court by the laws of the land. I think it would be in order.

The CHAIRMAN: I think not. I think it is outside this Act and might conflict with other legislation. You cannot put a Proclamation into an Act of Parliament.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I submit that it would not conflict with this Act of Parliament, though it would be inconsistent with the Riots Act and the Press Act.

The CHAIRMAN: That disposes of the new Clauses.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Friday).

Orders of the Day — MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Friday).

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes before One o'clock.